

































< 




Bhopal Affairs, 


A 



BY 


SYED SEDDIQUE H0SSE1N. 


Calcutta* 

Printed by Behary Lall Bannerjee 
At Messrs. J. GL Chatterjee & Co.’s Press, 
44 , Amherst Ssreet. 

1888 . 





< 





0 


t. 





PREFACE. 


Sir Lepel Griffin K. C. S. I., tlie Resident for 
the Central India Agency, brought two principal 
charges against me; namely— * 

(1) The compilation of the Khutab (books) 
which are hostile towards the British Government; 

(2) The mismanagement of the state arising 
from my interference with the state affairs. 

In addition to the above, the Resident verbally 
spoke to me of the complaints, forwarded against 
me, by the Sultan Jehan Begum, her husband, her 
two half-brothers, and other state-members, officers 
and subjects of the state and these form a branch 
of the second charge. 

The explanation was given in regard to the 
two charges, which were brought against me, 
from time to time. A brief explanation was given 
to the Resident with a memorandum addressed 
to him by the State, in reply to each item of' 
the charge. 

Each charge was met by me, in detail in 
reply with a general explanation in vindication 
of my conduct. Another explanation was submitted 
to the Ruler of the State. 

The explanation forwarded to the Resident at 
I Indore and the Ruler at Bhopal, is as follows:— 



PART 1. 


Section I. —A letter to the address of the Ruler 
of Bhopal, stating briefly my case, with a request 

‘ to forward my explanations to the Government 
of India. 

Section II. —My defence with regard to the com¬ 
pilation of the Mujmua-hhutab which is alleged 
to he seditious. 

Section III .— 

(a). The despatch of the telegram by Sir Lepel 
Griffin charging me for having connection with 
the false Mehdi at Soudan. 

(5) The charge brought against me by Bin Ma¬ 
homed, a Mahommedan convert. 

(<?) The compilation of the Iqtrab-us-Saya. 

Section IV \— 1 

(a) The remarks made by Sir Lepel on the books 
compiled and published by me forwarded to the 
State, by Col. Kincaid, with a memorandum, 
dated the 31st August 1885. 

(b) The explanation in detail submitted to the 
Ruler. 

(c) A brief explanation, with the memorandum, 
dated the 2nd September 1885, of the State, 
forwarded to the Resident. 

Section V .—A general explanation on the books 
compiled and composed by me. 


Ill 


PART II. 

Section I —An explanation of all the charges of 
mismanagement brought against me for inter¬ 
ference with the State affairs. 

Section II—General charges and defence . 

Appendix (A). —The Putwas (opinions) of Alims 
(the Mahommedan learned Doctors) of India, 
on the compilation of my hooks. 

Appendix (B ).—An “ Extract from the supplement 
to the “ Advocate of India’ 5 (a Bombay journal) 
in support of my explanation to the charges 
brought by Sir Lepel Griffin regarding the hooks. 

Appendix (CJ. —Extracts from my autobiography. 


S. H. 






















4. f * , 












It *'' 1 




. 1 **• * w ' ' '* . * - 

• * • • - . - 




V 


•' % 






r 










-* - • 
*■ 






- .. 





























' - 




V 








- J • 




- . » 

V-*” 

> • 0 % 








J > 


t • - 


— 


*T- 

■V. 








* * 














K 




i. 










Jt 


















j.' K 






2 


















/ 




: > 


* 

v -».j».. 


- - > 








*o*“ • • • • - • 












‘ .* 


s w> 






*\ 




> - 




t . 


















' \ ‘ 




r '* r m» 




- 




, 
















































































1 



















Bhopal , stating briefly my case, with a 
request to forward my explanations to the 
Government of India . 


To 

Her Highness The Nawab Shah Jehan Begum 
G. C. S. I. and C. L E. 

The Ruler of Bhopal , 


May it please Your Highness, 

1. It is with feelings of no ordinary regret I find 
that within a few years after the advent of Sir Lepel 
Griffin, the State of Bhopal has been condemned and 
Your Highness has been shocked to find a state of 
things never before dreamt of. It has pained me to 
see that to a great extent the causes of your woes and 
miseries are attributed to me. The inevitable Kismut 
will have its own way but I trust Your Highness will 
lose no faith in Allah who giveth and taketh away. I 
have full confidence in the justice of the liberal British 
Government and I would strongly insist on Your 
Highness to lay your case before His Excellency the 
Viceroy and Governor-General of India. His Lord- 
ship, I doubt not, will find the way to redress your 
wrongs. 


1 






( 2 ) 


2. Fully sympathising with Your Highness in 
your present woes ancl miseries I submit the following 
explanations, the copies of which were forwarded to 
Sir Lepel Griffin for his favourable consideration. 

3. I shall take the liberty to offer here my sincere 
thanks to Your Highness for the many favors and 
inestimable blessings which I enjoyed until 1881. 

4. Under the regime of the late lamented Nawab 
Secandar Begum, I accepted a post in the State and 
gradually rose to the top-most ladder in the service. 
I need not trouble Your Highness with the services 
which I rendered in my various capacities, as they are 
well known to you. By the grace of Allah Your 
Highness led me to the hymeneal altar in 1871 and 
since then I had the good fortune to live under the 
smiles of the paternal Paramount Power up to and 
until the advent of Sir Lepel Griffin in the Central 
India. 

5. Shortly after my marriage, at the request 
of the Buler, according to the usage of the state, the 
British Government was kind enough to confer on me 
the title of Nawab Walah Jah Amir-ul-Mulk and a 
khilut. The despatch of the Government dated the 
15th October 1872 to your address runs thus :— 

* * * * * * 

“ And that the Nawab, in gratitude for this splen¬ 
did boon bestowed on him by the British Government, 
should endeavour to increase the good reputation of 
the Euler, and to advance the interests and prosperity 
of the people with all his talents and ability. 55 


( 3 ) 


* c It is open to Your Highness and Nawab to main¬ 
tain the prosperity and progress of the State, which is 
already a pattern of good management to other States 
and to continue on that path of progress already so* 
well commenced.” 

6. In 1877 on the assumption of the title of the 
Empress of India by Her Most Gracious Majesty pro¬ 
claimed at Delhi the British Government ordained a 
salute of seventeen guns for me in token of personal 
distinction. 

7. The Agent to the Governor General addressed 
a letter to you on the 3rd March 1877 which speaks 
of me in the following terms. 

“ Remember me kindly to the Nawab who is 
earnest to make Bhopal and the Shah Jehan Begum 
famous. I am sure he will not fail in energy.” 

The Urdoo Khar it a, dated the 1st August 1882,, 
sent by the Viceroy to your address runs thus :— 

“ * * * * In reference to your letter ex¬ 

pressing your intention to join the battle-field and to 
render every help to the Government with men and 
money and moreover the hearty co-operation of the 
Nawab-consort in promoting your views and sympa¬ 
thising with the Government, I would say that the 
Government highly appreciates and acknowledges such 
a laudable proposal with thanks.” 

8. Lord Hip on in his Kharita, dated the 9tli 
November 1882, conveyed his thanks to me for my 
good wishes and congratulations to the Government- 
•after the defeat of Araby Pasha. 


( 4 ) 

Col. Kincaid in his letter, dated the 27th June 
1881, recognised my services thus: 

“ In this very important matter admirable efforts 
have been made by Your Highness and the Nawab- 
consort to complete the plan of opening a Railway 
line from Bhopal to Gwalior—it is highly laudable 
and worth mentioning.” 

9. After my marriage, Col. Osborne, the Political 
Agent, wrote to Your Highness in his memorandum, 
dated the 30th June 1871. 

“ I have received your Yad-dast to the effect that 
Khan Shaheb (meaning me) has been doing work in 
your Court. I am very glad to hear of this arrange¬ 
ment and your views on this subject are quite proper 
and desirable.” During the incumbency of General 
Daly, Walton, Watson, and Col. Bannerman, at Indore, 
and Col. Osborne, Barstow, Prideaux and Bannerman 
at SehOre, the administration was never spoken of in 
disparaging terms but on the other hand it was extolled 
before the world. 

10. It strikes me that Sir Lepel Griffin was under 
the impression that the administration was exclusivly 
in my hand and that Your Highness had very little to 
do. It is a pity that the Agent to the Governor- 
General did not take into his consideration the adminis¬ 
trative skill which made your name conspicuous 
before my marriage. It is widely known that the 
reforms introduced by you, after accession to the 
throne, and the troubles you undertook at the sacrifice 
of your health, made your administration popular and 
laudable in the estimation of the British Government. 


( 5 ) 

If it be conceded that after my marriage I took part 
in the management by actual interference with the 
State-affairs, the various reforms which made Bhopal 
the pattern of good management should be attributed 
to me. The Political officers of the day did not deem 
it proper to make a regular inquiry into the charges 
which are laid against me and the State. An investi¬ 
gation in a regular way is essentially necessary to shew 
how far the charges can be sustained and it will be 
incumbent upon my accusers to substantiate their 
allegations. 

11. In 1881 Sir Lepel Griffin came to Bhopal and 
I went to give him a cordial reception. I could not 
make out the reason of his cold and indifferent 
conduct towards me; but the warm reception he 
accorded to Ahmed Aly Khan, the husband of the 
Sultan Jehan Begum, on the first occasion of his 
visit, struck me that Sir Lepel was quite unlike his 
predecessors. I need not state the proceedings of 
Sir Lepel in Bhopal but I cannot help remarking that 
the protests of Your Highness made my position 
unsafe and critical. To me he pointed out his finger 
of scorn, whenever and wherever he met with any 
opposition in the carrying out of his proposals. The 
enemies of the State, who had formed an opposition 
party to thwart the plans of Your Highness and to 
ruin the State, found an opportunity to give vent to 
their feelings. They carried tales and acted as spies. 
Things came to such a pass as to afford an opportu¬ 
nity to men, like Din Maliammed and Mustapha, to 
rise against me and the State. No stone was left un- 


( 6 ) 

turned to find fault with me and charges were brought 
against me personally and the State which, to all 
intents and purposes, was identified with me. I was 
supposed to have a hand in the administration. In 
short, Sir Lepel took me to he the be-all and end-all 
of the administration. The private visits of Sir Lepel 
to the Sultan Jehan were protested by Your Highness 
and the Resident grew more exasperated. The result 
of all this is well known to Your Highness. I have 
been adjudged guilty without a formal inquiry, my 
books have been condemned as seditious without 
sufficient proofs and I have been disgraced before the 
world without a hearing. The prosecution, trial and 
sentence were virtually in the hands of Sir Lepel. 

12. Regarding the books condemned by Sir Lepel, 
I make myself bold to state here that they have been 
either misunderstood or falsely represented by the 
persons to whom reference was made by him. Any 
learned Mussulman in the service of the Government 
may come forward to accept my challenge and I shall 
be fully prepared to shew that the context and the 
writings are diametrically opposite to the view taken. 
It is a pity that the loyalty which I have always been 
shewing to the British Government was not taken into 
account by Sir Lepel. I have always been loyally 
attached to the Government, and whenever any occa¬ 
sion arose, I proved myself faithful to the trust imposed 
on me. In the late Cabul and Egyptian wars I 
pleaded the cause of the Paramount Power before 
your Highness and all the resources of the State were 
put under its disposal. Being fond of literary pursuits 


( 7 ) 

I spent my days in composing, compiling and translat¬ 
ing books. Some of these books I presented to the 
English officers of rank and distinction. The books 
are alleged to be full of sedition and stink of Waha- 
beeism. Could a disloyal person or a Wahabee ven¬ 
ture to present such books to men like Lord Ripon, 
knowing full well that he would be taken to task if 
the books were carefully examined ? The charge of 
sedition and disloyalty is a very serious one and nothing 
can be more gratifying to me than to vindicate my 
conduct before an assembly of learned men well-versed 
in the Persian, TJrdoo and Arabic languages. I trust 
Your Highness will earnestly ask His Excellency, the 
Viceroy and Governor-General of India, to appoint a 
commission before whom I shall meet the accusations 
of Sir Lepel Griffin and conclusively prove that in 
loyalty I am inferior to none. 

IB. The accompanying explanations will shew that 
incomplete isolated sentences are quoted to prove that 
I am disloyal and that I am a Wahabee. As a matter 
of fact I am neither the one nor the other. The sen¬ 
tences quoted, are the translations from the works of 
others and wherever an expression of my own views is 
made, I have strongly insisted on my co-religionists to 
be friendly to the English Government and explain¬ 
ed to them to the best of my power that it is iniquitous 
to wage war against the British Government. If the 
views expressed by me breathe a single disloyal word 
or burn with sedition, I am prepared to accept the 
verdict of an assembly of impartial scholars and 
doctors after a fair trial. Sir Lepel is not an Arabic 




( 8 ) 


scholar and so he has accepted the views of others. 
His informants might have misunderstood the 
passages and their statements should have been 
accepted with great caution. But alas ! things have 
been pushed on precipitously and I have been the un¬ 
fortunate victim of these adverse circumstances. 

14. The charge of mismanagement has been 
brought against me. The explanations submitted to 
the Resident, I am afraid, did not satisfy him. But 
how far the charge of mismanagement can be brought 
against me is a question which your Highness will be 
able to answer. Suffice it, for my purpose, to say 
that a charge of this kind needs very strong proofs, 
especially when a State, like Bhopal, protected by the 
Paramount Power under a Treaty written in black and 
white, had never the misfortune of receiving such a 
stigma for a period of upwards of thirteen years. 
Your Highness is well aware of the fact how the 
sworn enmity of the opposition clique in Bhopal has 
brought ruin on you and me. I am quite surprised to 
find that the Sultan Jehan turned the table against me. 
She forgot all the affections shewn by me to her and 
her children, she forgot all the care and interest which 
I used to take for her husband, she forgot all the inter¬ 
cessions I made on her behalf before your Highness. 
In pushing on her animosity against the Ruler she 
spared no means to bring ruin on me. 

15. The explanations are divided into, parts and 
sections for the sake of convenience and reference. 

16. The explanations which I forwarded to the 
Agent to the Governor General, are hereby submitted 


( 9 ) 


to Tour Highness iff the hope that they may he sent 
to the Government of India for reconsideration of my 
case. I am afraid the Government of India passed 
an order on the exparte reports and statements of 
Sir Lepel. 

17. The charges of mismanagement and undue 
interference, brought against me, deserve a careful 
investigation. Personally I am not sorry for this 
charge; but a charge of this kind against a state, 
which was held out to the world as a pattern of good 
government, is a serious one and the fatal consequences 
have already overtaken it. To the best of my know¬ 
ledge, the charges have not been properly investigated 
and the Paramount Power should be moved to make 
a thorough inquiry giving every opportunity to me to 
prove my innocence. 

18. It is not proper for me to enumerate here the 
insults and indignities offered to me. But I cannot 
help crying that Sir Lepel did not hesitate to “ add 
insult to injury.” I was proclaimed guilty and de¬ 
prived of my title and salute in an open Durbar in 
the most insulting language. I cut off all communi¬ 
cations with the outside world after my disgrace and 
pent myself up in a house to avoid any suspicion. 
But this did not satisfy Sir Lepel. He threatened 
my expulsion from Bhopal and often repeated his 
threats before me and Your Highness. I was out¬ 
rageously insulted and deeply humiliated before men 
who triumphantly exult at the humiliation of Your 
Highness. I was ordered to drag the wretched exis¬ 
tence of a prisoner immured in a separate house. 

2 


( 10 ) 

I was completely separated from Your Highness with¬ 
out being able to tend you while you were ill and I 
was called a Wahabee, a dishonest man, a rebel, a 
despot, and a sorcerer. I have borne all these insults 
and indignities with a calm resignation of heart in the 
hope that British justice will sooner or later find its 
way to redress the wrongs of an unfortunate man. 
Life hangs heayily on me but the innocence of my 
cause keeps up my spirits and I trust that the day is 
not far distant when my loyalty and devotion to the 
Paramount Power will be duly appreciated and all 
these stigmas will be removed. 

19. In conclusion I may take the liberty to state 
that the devotion and loyalty of Your Highness are so 
well known to the Paramount Power that it is needless 
for me to say that eventually justice will be meted 
Out to you and that your wrongs will receive redress. 
It behoves Your Highness to intercede in my favour 
to secure justice which is vouchsafed to every British 
subject and I shall feel grateful to the British Govern¬ 
ment for affording me an opportunity to shew the 
weakness and impropriety of the charges brought 
against me. 

I beg to remain 

Your Highness’s most devoted and 
sincere well-wisher 
(Sd.) Sediqtje Hossein Khan. 



( 11 ) 

PART I. 

Sec. II.— My defence with regard to the composition 
of Mujmia-Khutuh which is alleged to he 
seditious , 

Mujmia Khutab on Maizat-i-Hosna —a collec¬ 
tion of Khuthas read throughout the year. This hook 
was published at Bhopal, in 1296 A. H, Babiul-auL 
It consisted of 252 pages, out of which 245 pages 
dealt with the Khuthas, written by the Mahommedan 
Theologues and Doctors^ The maxims were compiled 
by Syed Mahommed, son of Ahmed, son of Ahdool 
Bary, resident of Zubaide in Yemen, from the works 
published by Hafiz Ibnul Zonji and others. The 
above Khutbas were published with others which were 
in manuscripts, and among the latter was the Khutba 
on Jehad, compiled by Moulovie Ismail of Delhi. 
Moulovie Ismail was not the author of the original 
texts, which are to be found in the Koran and other 
religious books. The Moulovie speaks of Jehad, as 
taken from the religious books but does not incite the 
people to wage war against the Government.. 

1. The Khutba in question was only compiled 
by me. 

2. The Khutba in question was published by 
oversight along with the important Khutbas, dealing 
with Kuruf (Sun Eclipse), Khusuf (Moon Eclipse),, 
Istaskai (Bain), Nika (marriage) &c. 

3. The Khutba in question, as a matter of prac¬ 
tice, is not read on Eridays, in fact it is not read at 
all. 


( 12 ) 

4. Nothing is written therein against the Govern¬ 
ment. 

5. The author of the Khutba on Jehad never 
waged war against the government, nor did incite any 
person to wage such war. Syed Ahmed, in his reply 
to Dr. Hunter, wrote that the Khutba in question was 
meant against the Sikhs and not against the Govern¬ 
ment. 

6. The maxims on Jehad are to be found in all 
religious books, especially the Koran, which has been 
translated into the Urdoo, Persian, English, Turkish, 
and Pushta languages. These religious books are read 
by males and females, young or old. But did any 
body ever think of carrying on Jehad against the 
Government ? The Khutba in question was meant 
to prepare the Mahommedans to fight with the Sikhs. 
It was written in the Arabic language of which the 
generality of the people are ignorant. 

7. The Koran and the six Hadis, called Sihah- 
Satta , treat of Jehad but no objection was ever taken 
to their publication. The Khutba in question is quite 
insignificant in comparison with them. 

8. The year in which the Khutba in question 
was published did not witness any war. The Cabul 
war broke out a year after, but the causes of this war, 
can hardly be assigned to the publication of the 
Khutba. . 

9. The books, of this kind, have been published 
at Calcutta and Bombay, without any objection by 
the followers of the Hanifa Sect, who are not called 


( 13 ) 


Wahabees. The Koran/ which dwells forcibly on 
Jehad, was published in Hindee, at Calcutta, in the 
name of Muoji Koran . The Miskad was translated 
into the Persian language by Shaik Abdool Huq., 
and was published by him at Calcutta. The book 
on Jehad was published in the Persian and Arabic 
languages and its translations were published at Bom¬ 
bay. The Shera Bekin has been translated into 
Urdoo and published. The Dar Mooktear has also 
been translated into Urdoo and published. The Eutwa 
Alumghir has been published at Calcutta.^ Each 
and every one of the said books deals with the Jehad, 
but the Khutba in question contains a mention of it. 

10. Under the benign and liberal British Govern¬ 
ment, the liberty of religion has been accorded to 
every one, high or low, without any discrimination. 
This has been repeatedly declared by the proclama¬ 
tions issued in the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty 
the Queen Empress. At the Delhi Durbar on the 
1st January 1877, the Viceroy declared “ Now under 
laws which impartially protect all races and all creeds, 
every subject of Her Majesty may peacefully enjoy 
his own. The toleration of the Government permits 
each member of the community to follow without 
molestation the rules and rites of his religion.” Again 
—“ All men, high and low, may feel that under our 
Buie, they will enjoy liberty, equity and justice and 
that to promote their happiness, to add to their pros¬ 
perity and advance their welfare are the everpresent 
aims and objects of our Empire.” 

The compilation of the religious books is one of 


( 14 ) 


the rules and rites of religion which one is hound to 
observe. The Christians, Hindus, and Mahommedans 
publish their respective tenets and compile their reli¬ 
gious maxims for publication. Each sect attacks the 
creed of another and the religious controversy is car¬ 
ried on verbally and in writings. The above publica¬ 
tions have never been condemned by the enlightened 
Government. Seditious writings form no doubt an 
exception but they are quite distinct from religious 
writings. 

11. Bhopal is not the seat of religious con¬ 
troversy. Even in the dark days of the Mutiny, the 
mutineers, whether Mahommedans or Hindus, were 
handed over to the Political Agent for punishment. 
The foreigners, Arabs, Turks, Afghans and others, are, 
under the standing order of the State, not allowed to 
stay at Bhopal for more than three or four days, on 
the ground that they might be the enemies of the 
British Government and create disaffection in the 
State. 

12. The officials as a class are old and tried 
servants. The new ones were selected from the 
officers and pensioners of the British Government. 
Not a single officer has ever been suspected to be 
a Wahabee. 

13. In the Education Department the curriculum 
is on the lines adopted elsewhere. The book on 
Jehad is -never read or taught. 

14. This book should be read with other books 
compiled or composed by me. Eour years anterior to 
the publication of the book in question, I compiled a 


( 15 ) 


book called Hidyat-ul-SaiL At page 121, line 110 of 
this book, I have stated in clear and unambiguous lan¬ 
guage that we (the Mahommedans) are not bound by the 
sayings of Mahommed, son of Abdool Waheb of Nejdi, 
the founder of the Wahabee Sect and Moulovie Ismail 
the author of the Khutba in dispute. In another book 
called Mawadul Obeid published by me, in 1298 A. H,. 
I have shewn that the maxims on Jehad do not aj3ply 
to this country and that it is a sin of heinous type, to 
break the obligations and stipulations of the Treaty 
with the Paramount Power. The sins and iniquities, 
of waging war against the British Government, are 
discussed in this book from page 33 to page 43. In 
1299 A. H. I published the Taj-Muhullub which 
deals with the Wahabees. This sect became extinct 
in Arabia in 1818 A. D., the year of the Treaty entered 
into by the Paramount Power with the Bhopal State. 
This book was written on the authorities of the Eng¬ 
lish Historians whose objects and motives can never 
be impugned. In 1298 A. H. I published the 
Hazul Khasib which deals with the mistaken notions 
and ideas of the worshippers of tomb, who out of 
spite and enmity call others as Wahabees, as they 
do not countenance the practice of worshipping the 
tombs. The repudiation of the Wahabee creed by 
me, in 1292 A. II., clearly refutes the charge of 
being a Wahabee—a charge brought against me six 
years after the publication of my book. 

15. The books named Tukbiatul Imaum Ncisibut-ul- 
Mmlamin , Raha-Soorat Hidyat-ul-Momni are called 
the books of the Wahabees and their authors are 



( 16 ) 


designated Wahabees. As a matter of fact there is 
not a single passage in any book which preaches Jehad, 
or establishes the right of the ’Waliabees, On the 
other hand th vHidyat-ul-Momni is an exposition 
against the Tajia and clearly repudiates the name and 
profession of the Wahabees. It was compiled by my 
late father before 1250 A. II,, and was published at 
Calcutta, Delhi, and other places. The authors of the 
above books were learned Doctors and used to preach 
in India, but the Government never adopted any 
measures against them. The sect of Wahabees arose 
in Nejd. The illiterate people call the authors of the 
Hadis as Wahabees, though the books are meant to 
refute some of their practices and rites and were writ¬ 
ten at a time, long anterior to the invention of the 
word Wahabee. If the followers of the Hadis are 
called Wahabees, all followers of Islam, Shea or 
Hanifa, will come under the category of Wahabee. 
It is obligatory on the Sheas to declare Jehad when 
Imam Mehdi appears, and as for the Hanifas their 
books of authority contemplate of Jehad. The Hadis 
lay down some strict conditions for declaring Jehad. 
There is nothing peculiar in the followers of the Hadis 
to call them by the nickname of Wahabee. On the 
other hand they condemn the Jehad on the ground 
that it cannot be justified until and unless the require¬ 
ments and conditions are fulfilled, but the signs of the 
time do not long since give birth to such requirements 
and conditions. In no country the followers of the 
Hadis can declare Jehad in the absence of the require¬ 
ments and conditions. The followers of Hanifa are not 


( 17 ) 


called Wahabees, bat among the Maliommedans they 
were the persons who declared Jehad and fought under 
its name in the days of the Mutiny. 

16. The illiterate Mahommedans, who do not un¬ 
derstand their own religious doctrines, become fanatics 
and desperate characters. Those who have rightly 
understood the Hadis, will not follow in the wake of 
the fanatics and the mutineers, and the British Govern¬ 
ment will have no cause of complaint against them. 
Such men do not advocate the cause of Jehad but 
expressly declare that the requirements and conditions, 
to justify it, are not forthcoming. The Mahommedans 
in Cabul are the followers of Hanifa and not Wahabees. 

The above explanation was rendered to Col. 
Bannerman in 1881. The enemies of the State wanted 
to implicate me by carrying tales to General Daly 
just after the rupture between the late Nawob 
Kudsia Begum and the present Ruler, regarding 
the civil and criminal cases in the Deori State. 
General Daly took no steps and after his departure 
Sir Lepel Griffin conveyed the instructions of the 
Government to Col. Bannerman pointing out the 
propriety of not publishing books which are adverse 
to the Government in religious and political views. 
The Mujmia Klmtab was collected and destroyed in 
the presence of Col. Bannerman in March 1881, Since 
then I took a solemn vow to prevent, to the best of 
my power, the publication of any such book by any 
person in Bhopal. I myself made it a point to vin¬ 
dicate the cause of the Government in my works such 
as Mawadul - Obeid i Rowz-i-khutlchusib and others. 

S. H. 


3 


( 18 ) 

PART I. 

Sec. III.— Cl. (a) The despatch of the telegram 
by Sir Lepel Griffin charging me for 
having connection with the false Mehdi 
at Soudan. 

In 1885 Sir Lepel Griffin came back from 
England. On the 18th August 1885, the Vakil was 
asked by the Political Agent to inform Her Highness, 
the contents of a telegram which he had received 
from Sir Lepel on the previous day. The telegram 
was to this purport—Inform the Nawob who had 
fillakaj connection with the Mehdi that his disciple 
and successor Abdoolla was killed at Khartoum, on 
the 26th July 1885, in the battle. The Vakil was 
directed by the Begum to ask the Political Agent 
what documentary proofs he had, to implicate the 
Nawob in the affair of the Mehdi of Soudan. In 
reply Col. Kincaid said that the telegram was 
meant to convey an information. But when he 
was asked by the State to explain what the Resi¬ 
dent meant by the word illaka, he stated that 
the Nawob was fully aware of all the facts and 
circumstances of the Mehdi, and in fact he had 
written a book on the subject. It was pointed out 
to the Political Agent that the word illaka would 
convey a meaning quite different from knowledge. 

On the 20th August 1885, a letter was formally 
addressed to the Political Agent asking him to inform 
what he meant by Illaka as the word itself did 
not bear out the meaning which he had put. In 


( 19 ) 


reply a perwanna was issued through the Vakil stating 
that the wording of the telegram did not mean illaka , 
hut an information supplied to a man, who had taken 
a fancy to a subject; for example informations of his¬ 
torical facts or stars, are given to those who are fond of 
history or astronomy; the Nawob had written a book 
on Mehdi, hence the information of the death of the 
false Mehdi was given to him. 

On the 24th August 1885, the Vakil was directed 
to speak to the Political Agent that he had been 
duly informed of the publication of the book, 
which was written to shew that the Mehdi of Soudan 
was a false pretender, that the ignorant and illiterate 
men should not take him to be the promised Mehdi, 
as his appearance at Soudan was not borne out by the 
religious books. It was again pointed out to the Poli¬ 
tical Agent that the word illaka meant connection, 
interest or concern, and not fancy or knowledge, 
according to the Lexicon. It was.futher represented 
that the subjects of Bhopal had no concern with any 
person, save and except the British Government. The 
Political Agent wrote to say that he would inform the 
Resident of the above. 


S. H. 


( 20 ) 

PART I. 

Sec. III.— Cl. (b). The charge brought against me 
by Din Mahomed, a Mahomedan convert . 

In 1885, I had the misfortune to incur the dis¬ 
pleasure of the officers at Sehore and Indore; the state 
members were at logger-heads with me, I was deprived 
of my title and salute and a Government order had 
been issued prohibiting me strictly to interfere in state 
affairs. It was at this critical time a person was set up, 
I believe, by my enemies to annihilate me completely. 

In Safar 1808 A. H., one Din Mahommed, a 
Mahommedan convert, sent a letter asking me to pay 
him Us. 1000, and threatening me to betray my 
secrets. He alleged in the letter, that I had paid him 
Rs. 1,000 for going to Soudan and that I had agreed 
to pay him Hs. 1,000 on his return. My Agent 
Abdool Rahaman forwarded this letter with a petition 
to the Ruler, who ordered an inquiry and report. The 
result of the inquiry held by Muksood Aly, was that 
Din Mahommed was out of employ, and was instigated 
by others to send the threatening letter to extort money 
from me, though he was quite a stranger to me. 

Some time after I read in a Benaras newspaper 
that Din Mahommed was a man of unscrupulous 
character, and that he was in the habit of robbing 
men of their money by foul means. 

The petitions subsequently sent by Din Mahommed 
to the Ruler clearly shew that he was a tool in the 
hands of my sworn enemies and that he sincerely 
repented of his evil doings. 


S. H. 


( 21 ) 

PART I. 


Sec. Ill — Cl. (c) The compilation of Iqtrab-us-Saya. 

I shall now dwell on the book referred to hy the 
Political Agent. It is called Iqtrab-us-Saya and is an 
IJrdoo translation from the Arabic Book called Isktral 
Ashord-m-Saya, compiled by Sayed Mahommed Bur- 
zunji of Medina. It consists of 225 pages. It was 
published at Agra, in the Mufid Am Press in 1301 
A. H. The original Arabic book is famous for the 
treatment of Resurrection. A Persian translation of 
the hook was published in India by Moulovie Rufi-u- 
din of Delhi. 

The religious hooks generally speak of the advent 
of the promised Mehdi at the universal destruction 
without assigning any date for it. It was on this 
account that many false Mehdis arose, and many saints 
made false prophecies about the appearance of the 
Mehdi. 

The sole object of publishing the hook is to con¬ 
vince my co-religionists to be on their guard, and not 
to recognise the false Mehdis, set up in the east and 
the west, by influential men Amies (wealthy), Alim 
(learned), Reis (Ruler), Dervish (dervise), Soudagar 
(merchant), not unlike the one set up at Soudan. The 
traits in the chrracter of the promised Mehdi, were 
described hy Mahommed. 

The publication of the hook was quite opportune. 
It was quite in support of the Government and a com¬ 
plete refutation of the false claims of the Soudan 
man. I am afraid the Resident was misinformed hy the 


( 22 ) 

man who represented that the hook was in support of 
the right of the Soudan man. I shall he very glad to 
court an inquiry on the subject. 

In the book in question, I have discussed on the 
claims of the twenty persons who preceded the Melidi 
of Soudan and excelled the latter in birth, learning 
and religious professions and practices. These men 
proclaimed themselves to be Mehdis but were sub¬ 
sequently found out to be imposters. How could the 
Soudan man be acknowledged as the true Mehdi ? 
The following passage is clearly in point. 

“ To me the Mehdi of Soudan has caused the dis¬ 
turbances to wage war but his claims to Mehdiship 
are totally false. In Egypt he waged war and the 
British Government is trying to put down the distur¬ 
bances.’’ 

The claims of the false Mehdis are described at 
pages 12 to 121. At page 118, lines 13 and 11, the 
following sentences occur; 

“ No proofs are forthcoming to shew that the 
claimant at Soudan is the promised Mehdi who will 
appear at the general destruction. Where are the 
true traits in his character, and the signs of the time 
as described by Mahommed in the Hadis and his dis¬ 
ciples in their sayings ? Such claims were made by his 
predecessors but were proved false.” 

At page 19 it is said, 

“ It is likely that this man may be a Mujuddid 
(Reformer) of the faith, though he is not so 
described in the newspapers.” 


( 23 ) 


Vide page 19 line 11, 

cc I know not this Majucldid of Soudan. He is not, 
I can confidently assert, the promised Melidi.” 
The conclusion drawn by me at page 121 runs thus; 

“ The general public are disposed to follow the 
braying of an ass. Some follow hoodwinked those 
who claim to be God, Prophet, Mehdi, Majuddid (re¬ 
former), Mujtahed (Imam), and prophetic Saint. The 
result of such a state of things is that the people put 
confidence in such men and believe every flying gossip 
about them.’ 5 

According to my views such men are fools and 
those who follow them are no less. The pretensions 
of the Soudan man as Mehdi and reformer have been 
proved to be false. The book concludes with a Persian 
couplet which means; 

Trust not the report circulated by man, 

Look, how false is the pretender of Soudan. 

I have stated in clear and unambiguous language 
that the promised Mehdi is yet to come, he will appear 
at Medina and not elsewhere, though he may be born 
in Turkey, Egypt, England or Soudon; he will not 
put forward his claim and will refuse to enlist disciples 
at Mecca. The year, in which he is ushered in, will 
witness the reappearance of Jesus Christ. Those, who 
believe in the appearance of the Mehdi, are bound to 
shew the reappearance of Jesus Christ. The Mahom- 
medan Doctors and Theologues are not at one on the 
appearance of the Mehdi, but none entertains any doubt 
on the reappearance of Jesus. The promised Mehdi 


( 24 ) 

will have his followers at places which lie be¬ 
tween Itoukan and Mecca. The death of Khalipha 
Abdoolla, the successor of the deceased Mehdi of 
Soudan, at Khartoum, clearly disproves the claim, of 
the false Mehdi and supports my views. The above 
information was conveyed to me by the [Resident, 
with reasons best known to him, but at any rate it 
confirms my views on the promised Mehdi. 


S. H. 



( 25 ) 

PART I. 


Sec. IV.— Cl (a) The remarks made by Sir Lepel 
on the books compiled and published by 
me forwarded to the State , by Col . Kincaid , 
with a (memorandum ). 

Yad-dast No. 96. 


Dated the 31st . August 1885 . 

BliopaL 

From Col. Kincaid, 

To Her Highness the Begum oe Bhopal. 

Under the instructions of the Resident for the 
Central India, a copy of his remarks on the books 
compiled and composed by the Nawob Wala Jah 
Amir-ul-Mulk Mahommed Sedique Hossein Khan 
Bahadoor, is sent to you; the translation of the 
remarks was read to you at an interview on the 28th 
August last. 

Remarks by Sir Lepel Griffin. 

In the discharge of my duties as Agent to the 
Governor General for the Central India, I read out 
to Her Highness the Begum and her husband the 
orders of the Government, on the seditious, writings 
compiled, published, and circulated by the Nabob. 

The name of the compilation is Dewan-ul-khutab - 
ala-Sanatul Kamala. It is a collection of benedictions 
4 


( 26 ) 

read out every Friday throughout the year. This 
has been written in the Arabic language of which 
the generality of men in India are ignorant. The 
apparent object of the compiler is to give publicity 
to it in Arabia and Egypt. The Government of 
India conveyed its high displeasure to the Nawob 
through the Political Agent, for the seditious tone and 
spirit of the writings; but in consideration of the loyal 
and friendly disposition of the Begum, the Nawob 
was directed to collect all the copies, which had been 
disposed of, by sale or otherwise, and was moreover 
warned not to compile such boohs. No more action 
was taken against him at that time. 

On the 21st March 1881, Col. Bannerman reported 
to me, that the Nawob had carried out the orders of 
the Government, and that he was informed of the fact 
that the Government did not severely deal with him in 
consideration of the claims of the Begum. The Begum 
expressed her ignorance of the publication of the 
Khutab objected to, and was grateful to the Govern¬ 
ment for the kind consideration shewn to her husband. 

The question is how far the Nawob has carried 
out the orders of the Government and acted up to 
the censure passed on him. 

The first book which I would mention is called 
the Gaikbal, the History of Bhopal, written in 1882, 
a year after the censure. A copy of the book 
was received by me in the season of the Khareef 
harvest. The book was read out to me by a res¬ 
pectable and well-read Musulman, in the service 
of the Government. The book, I think, is open 


( 27 ) 

to censure in the highest degree. I sent a private 
letter to the Political Agent, intimating my visit 
to Bhopal within a short time, and asking him to 
read the book carefully and find out the objectionable 
passages therein, other than those marked by me. I 
wrote further to say that on my arrival at Bhopal 
I would consider the case of the Nawob and discuss 
with him in the presence of the Begum regarding the 
objectionable passages. This was written on the 2nd 
December 1882. My visit to Bhopal was deferred on 
account of the disturbances of the Bhil insurgents. 
I had to proceed to Malwa postponing my visit. 
A few days after I went to England. The inquiry 
thus stood over till this day. It is proper to state 
here, that I asked the Political Agent to send for 
four copies of the book, but the State refused to give, 
on the ground that the book, was incomplete and un¬ 
published. I was somehow supplied with a copy of 
the book, four months previous to the reply given by 
the State, which was not true. The circulation of the 
book was stopped for my interference in the matter. 
The books were not destroyed; the copies published 
are in possession of the Nawob. I need not argue 
on it in detail, as the book has not been circulated 
but I must say that there are some passages in it 
which are open to grave objections. The pages 
which deal with the marriage of the Sultan Jehan, the 
heir-apparent, and the trip of the Begum to -Calcutta 
in 1882, were written with the object of exciting the 
wrath of the Begum against her daughter and son-in- 
law, who have been treated very unjustly, and whose 


( 28 ) 

loyalty has been called in question in a bad spirit. 
The right of the heir-apparent, who is represented to 
belong not to the royal family, is questioned ; and the 
right of Alumghir Mahommed is supported. The step¬ 
sons of the Begum, who are not on good terms with 
theNawob, are represented to be wicked and disloyal. 
The political Agent and the Resident are described 
in false colours, to convince the Begum that they are 
hostile to her and partial to her daughter and son-in¬ 
law, and it has been falsly represented that the 
Resident advised the Begum to apppoint her son-in- 
law as the minister. 

The work will be hereafter criticised carefully, 
but it is worth noting here, that I know, for certain, 
that the writings are meant to create a rupture in 
the family of the Begum. The State members have 
been falsely described with the object of defaming 
them. Since the day of my appointment at Indore, 
I have had every opportunity to watch their conduct. 
The conduct of the officers of the Central India has 
been also wrongly described out of malice. 

There is another book which deserves noticing. 
It is called Turjama Wahdbea and published in 1884 
in the Urdoo language. This book was translated 
into English by Syed Akbar Alim, of late, the third 
assistant to the second minister. The preface is an 
encomium on the talents of the Nawob, and was 
composed by the Nawob himself against the wishes of 
the Translator, who gave me the information. I do 
not intend arguing on the book, as the Translation 
cannot convey exactly the true ideas and sentiments, 


( 29 ) 

as embodied in the original book, which a well-read 
Musulman can easily catch at a hint. But consider¬ 
ing the rank of the Nawob and the existing circum¬ 
stances of the day, apart from the tendency of the 
book to incite disturbance, I should say that the ex¬ 
tolling of the "Wahabee creed and arguing in support 
thereof is a breach of the friendship which exists with 
the British government, especially at a time when it 
was involved in Egypt in the war with the Medhi. 
Such a conduct, on the part of one who is the hus¬ 
band of a leading chief in India, was quite unwarant- 
ed. The tendency of the Nawob to the Wahabee 
creed is well-known; he never misses any opportunity 
to praise the Wahabees in his work. With whatever 
object the book in question was compiled, he en¬ 
couraged the Wahabee creed in the Gairbal, at the 
beginning and conclusion of it, and often asserted 
that the Indian Wahabees arc true, faithful and peace- 
abiding. 

The best way, to understand the object and context 
of the Turjama Wahabea, is to refer to the Iktrab 
Saya which was complied in April 1884 and published 
in 1885, in the name of his eldest son Noorul Hossein. 
I can not make out the object of publishing the book 
in the name of his son; especially when the latter 
does not profess a creed which the book purports to 
support. The object might be to ward off an inquiry. 
The book was published at Agra and not at Bhopal, 
to impose upon the Mussulmans who are ignorant of 
the tone and style of the Nawob’s writings; but the 
educated men are of opinion that the Iktrab Saya is a 


( 30 ) 

seditious book, especially directed against the English. 
The criticisms on the hook are given in detail. 

At the outset, I would state that the remarks 
made on the Translation of Wahabea apply to this 
book. Even conceding that the book is not seditious, 
the publication of it is a flagrant breach of the friend¬ 
ship with the British Government, looking at the 
existing circumstances of the day, the difficulties with 
which the British are beset at Soudan and the fact 
of the publisher being the husband of a loyal Buler. 
The book generally speaks of the claims and right of 
the Mehdi, and especially of the Mehdi of Soudan. 
The object of the Nawob is to shew, (1) that the time 
of the advent of the promised Mehdi is drawing nigh ; 
(2) that every man who achieves some glorious deeds 
is a Mehdi. 

Moreover the Mahommedans are alleged to be 
wanting, now a days, in martial spirit since they 
have ceased to carry on Jehad. The Nawob has very 
stirringly written the book to infuse spirit in the 
minds of the Mahommedans in favor of the Mehdi. 
He has expressed his hearty wishes and hopes for the 
advent of the promised Mehdi, as the time has arrived 
to kill the infidel (Eirringees) and achieve victory. 
In support of this the Nawob has tried to shew that 
the present time is the same as prophesied in the 
Sadis, wherein it is described that the sins and 
evils in this world will spread far and wide. He 
indirectly suggests that the Eulers of India i. e. the 
Empress and the Viceroy and the English should 
be brought before the Mehdi with fetters of sub- 


( 31 ) 

jection. The Mehdi of Soudan lias been compared 
with Abdool Wahab of Xejdi to excite the Indian 
Wahabees. He has tried to shew that the English 
newspapers write falsely in fear of the Government. 
In short those who read the book will understand that 
the fall of Mehdi is false. The victory of the Mehdi 
and the defeat of the English army are descibed in 
glowing terms. The Nawab attempts to shew that 
the Sadis , which describe the signs of the advent 
of the Mehdi, are not trustworthy, with the object 
of shewing that the Mehdi of Soudan, though want¬ 
ing in the attributes as described in the Hadis, is 
a true prophet. The Nawob states, that in every 
century a reformer rises, spreads the religion by Jehad 
and purifies it of all concomitant evils; his object 
is to prepare the Mahommedans for Jehad and to 
recognise the Soudan-man as a reformer, if not as 
the promised Mehdi. The Nawob has attempted to 
conceal his real object by accusing the Soudan man, 
here and there, without assigning any reason’ except 
that the promised Mehdi comes from the Syed 
family. Thus the Indian Mahommedans will recog¬ 
nise the Mehdi of Soudan as the promised Mehdi, 
if he is proved to be a Syed. In proof of the above I 
would cite the following pages. 

p. p. 5 and 6 from the beginning to the end. 


p. 

6 

lines 

11, 19 and 20 

p- 

37 

do 

9 

p- 

41 

do 

20 

p- 

57 

do 

1 

p- 

58 

do 

11, 12 & 13 




( 

p. 59 

lines 

9 

p. 64 

do 

13 

p. 57 

do 

8 

p. 116 

do 

13 

p. 120 

do 

15 

p. 220 

do 

17 

p. 221 

do 

8 

p. 140 



p. 141 

do 

3 


The last book to which I would allude is the 
Hidayut Sail Ala Hidayut-ul-Masail , written in the 
Persian language. I think it clearly incites the Mus- 
salmans in India against the British Government. 
This is more seditious for the language than the Arabic 
books, for which the Nabob incurred the displeasure 
of the Government in 1881. The books, for which 
pardon was granted to him in that year, could not and 
did not include this book in question which was pub¬ 
lished a year before. The Nawob committed more 
serious offences in publishing this book than what he 
did in publishing the book which called for censure, 
and for which he was eventually pardoned by the 
Government. In 1881, the Government was not aware 
of the publication and contents of this book. The 
book is intelligible to every sensible man and hence 
no comments are called for. I would cite the follow¬ 
ing pages for easy references, which have been tran¬ 
slated for me by an able man. This book was written 
at the time of the arrival of the Prince of Wales in 
India. The following pages are cited. 


( 33 ) 

Question 32. Answer page 94 Lines 16 to 24 
page 95 Lines 17 to 24 
page 96 Lines 3 to 4 
and from 26 to the conclusion. 
Question 33, page 97 Lines 2 and 4. 

Answer page 97 Lines 4 and 13 and 19 and 20. 
Question 34. page 98 Lines 8 and 11. 

Answer page 98 Line 18 to the conclusion. 
Question 35. page 100 Lines 5 and 17. 

Question 36. page 101 Lines 4, 10 and 11. 

Question 39. page‘103 Lines 2 and 5. 

Query No. 30 page 88 Line 1. 

Is it not proper to allow the Kaffirs (infidels) to 
live in Arabia ? 

Answer, page 88 line 2. 

The infidels are of three classes. 

(1) Those who profess a creed, contrary to the estab¬ 
lished one, are not allowed to live in Arabia until 
they embrace Mahommedanism, otherwise they 
should he killed. 

(2) The Hebrews and the Nazarenes deserve death 
or are liable to pa y jezia, under the orders of God, 
hut the Kadis enjoin on their expulsion from 
Arabia. 

At page 88 lines 10 and 11 the following sentence 
occurs. The Kadis say “ expel the Hebrews and 
the Nazarenes from Arabia” Page 91 Line 2 and 4. 

(3) The Mosaics who are grain-dealers, and the 
Kaffirs of Iran i.e. the men who have not got the 
inspired books, are not mentioned in the Kadis 

5 


( 31 ) 


except that of Abdool Bahaman Bin Wuf in 
which it is advised to accord them the same treat¬ 
ment, which others who have got the inspired 
hooks receive, or in other words the expulsion of 
them from Arabia is enjoined. Page 91 line 13 
to 18. 

Those who have got the inspired hooks and the 
Kaffirs of Iran living in Yedda, and especially in the 
seaports near Mecca, have lately raised disturbances. 
This is known to the residents and the Hajis; but it 
seems that Sultan Abdool Aziz Khan expelled the 
Piringee preachers from Arabia and wrested their 
flags from Yedda. The action of the Sultan was 
based on political motives and not for carrying out 
the religious commandments. Still the action is in 
accordance with the order of God and his Prophet. 

Question 32. What is the order for a Mussalman, 
who for trade goes to a Mahammedan 
country, under the subjection and con¬ 
trol of the English, and accepts their 
laws though they may be against the 
Shera and lives permanently and 
acquires there influence ? 

At page 94 lines 16 & 24. 

This question has many aspects. 

Pirst. In Thafatul Mirioj , Ibun Hujjir Mecci 
has called ( a Maliommedan city under the subjection 
of the kaffirs, Dar-ul Harb i. e., the place where the 
Jehad can be declared. The Prophet has said that 
Mam is conqueror and not conquered. God is the 


( 35 ) 

absolute owner of the world; He giveth one as he 
chooseth—such are His commandments. It is the 
duty of the Mahommedans to take back a place 
which formerly belonged to them from the kaffirs by 
means of war or otherwise. 

Second: The Mahommedans who emigrate to such 
places are great sinners though they may not accept 
the laws of the Kaffirs. The Mahommedans who 
lecognise the laws of the kaffirs are themselves 
kaffirs and liable to the punishment meted out to 
the dissenters. 

Page 95 from line 17 to line 24. 

Third: It is a heinous offence to live permanently 
at such places and carry on trade there. They presu¬ 
mably accept the acts of the kaffirs. According to 
8hera they should fight with the Kaffirs , but it devolves 
on their neighbours who live at a distance of three 
manjils to render them help. It is the duty of the 
residents of such towns and their neighbours to fight 
with the kaffirs and to free their co-religionists by 
means of war under the commands of God which 
run thus “Kill the kaffirs wherever you find them ; 
catch and surround them.” Thus much more it 
becomes the duty of such Mahommedans to expel 
the kaffirs who have conquered our cities and levelled 
our houses and insulted us. 

Page 96. Lines 3 and 4. 

According to the Koran , the agents and friends of 
the kaffirs are irreligious. The Koran says —“ Thou 
shalt not attain thy religion which believes in God and 
future world, if thou art a friend to those who are 


( 3G ) 


enemies of God, be they thy relatives, nay thy father/' 
God says “Thou shalt not make friends with those 
who are my enemies or who refuse to accept the 
truths which are revealed to thee.” God further 
enjoins—“Thou shalt not be a friend of one, who 
laughs at thy religion—even if he has got the inspired 
book before or one who does not believe in me. 
If thou professest to be true fear me..” The kaffir 
Pirringees are the Kaffirs of the first-water. Regard¬ 
ing a person, who sells his house to a Nazarene to 
enable the latter to build there church, Ibz Shersen 
quotes the text of the Koran, which runs thus— 
“ Any Mahommedan who contracts friendship with 
the Nazarene becomes a Nazarene.” 

Page 96. Line 26. The Nazarenes want to conquer 
us, their words breathe enmity, and their hearts 
overflow with it. As God has enjoined, in the 
Koran, on the Mahommedans to live apart from 
them, so it is not proper to respect them. 

Question 33. Page 97. 

Is a Mussalman faithful to his creed who lives in 
a place under the subjection of the Kaffirs and obeys 
their orders ? 

In illustration of the fact that they are subjects 
of the Kaffirs the flags of Britannia and others are 
alluded to. 

Answer. Page 96. Such Mussalmans are the friends 
to the Kaffirs and attached to them to whom they 
owe their position and dignity. These Kaffirs 
enjoy their prosperity in this world only, and have 


( 37 ) 


imposed on tlie Mussalmans. Hence the Mussal- 
mans are anxious to attain property, land and 
wealth, but are indifferent to the future world. 
They think that the blessings of the British 
Government in regard to the safety of their life 
and property are of importance. Such illiterate 
Islamites, who are indifferent to the religion of the 
Kaffirs, are guilty of heinous sins and liable to 
punishment under Shera. Those, who are well- 
conversant with the doctrines of the religion, and 
respect the Nazarenes, should cease to do, other¬ 
wise they would be dissenters and liable to punish¬ 
ment inflicted on the dissenters. Such men are 
irreligious according to the Futwas of the Sadis 
and the Koran . God has strictly forbidden to 
make friends with the Kaffirs—hence it follows 
that these men are irreligious. 

Question 34. Page 98. 

What will be the fate of those Mussalmans who 
consider the Kaffirs to be judges and dispensers of 
justice ? The names of the Mahommedan Sultans 
are referred to strongly. 

Answer:—Those who praise the Kaffirs are Kaffirs 
themselves and liable to punishment for the sins of 
heinous type. They should be avoided. But they 
are not Kaffirs who praise the personal merits of 
the Kaffirs and not their religion. 

Page 98. 

Those who praise the Kaffirs, their laws and 
precepts which are wicked, are Kaffirs themselves. 
They are declared sinners by God. 


( 38 ) 


Some of these laws apparently seem to be just, 
but in reality they have been perverted by these 
wicked Kaffirs to evil purposes and seem to 
threaten Islamism. In fact there is no just law 
except the Slier as which are based on the Koran 
and the Hadis. The commands of God are just; 
if the laws of the Kaffirs had been just they would 
have been respected. But the Mahommedans 
have been enjoined to condemn the religion of the 
Nazarenes and others. If their laws had been 
just their religion could not have been condemned. 
The just laws can not be condemed. The creed 
of the Mahommedans is the true religion and 
the Kaffirs have no religion ; it is improper to 
call their laws just. 

Question 35 page 100. 

A Mahommedan, in spite of prohibition, goes to 
the territorry of the Kaffirs with property and is 
killed on his way ; what is the law on the death 
and property of such a man ? Is it proper to des¬ 
troy his property as he had the intention to be 
domiciled in the land of the Kaffirs and the mur¬ 
derer belongs to the class of men who intend 
destroying the land of the Kaffirs ? Is he a 
martyr ? What is the law which governs the 
murderer ? 

Answer :—The land of the Kaffirs consists of (I) the 
country which is their mother-land and has been 
in their possession; to wit, Sham and Irak 
which were under the subjection of the Kaffirs at 
the time of the Prophet. It is no doubt proper 


( 39 ) 


under the Shera to carry on trade at such places— 
as a means of livelihood. The disciples of Mahom- 
med, who were contemporaneous with him, used 
to resort to such places for trade, in short the 
Prophet himself on behalf of his first wife used to 
go on trading business. It is not prohibited to 
resort to such places on business. Those who kill 
such persons should be dealt with as plunderers ; 
the death of such plunderers is justified and those 
unfortunate victims are martyrs under the Hadis. 

(2) The country which was under the posses¬ 
sion of the Mahammedans but subsequently 
conquered by the Kaffirs, should be taken back 
by means of Jehad. Those who go to such places 
on trading purposes are sinners in the eye of God 
and religion. 

Question 26. Page 100. Line 3 & Page 101 Lines 
4 to 11. 

Is it proper under the Shera for a man to go 
with his family and property and be domiciled in a 
Mahomedan country which has been conquered 
by the Kaffirs ? Is he guilty of a sin ? Is the 
religion of a man untainted, if he considers the 
Kaffirs his enemies but lives in their country for 
the sake of urgent* necessity ? Is he bound to 
accept and obey the laws of the Kaffirs which 
conflict with the Shera ? Should he live there 
or leave the place ? 

Answer :—It is proper for a Mahomedan, who doubts 
the conflicting religion of the Kaffirs and cannot 
perform his own religious rites, to leave a Mahom- 


( 40 ) 

medan country under the Kaffirs, otherwise he is 
a sinner. Even if he performs his religious rites 
safely there, he should leave it for a Mahommedan 
country, to prevent the increase of population 
in the land of the Kaffirs and to avoid their 
frauds and imposition. 

Question 39. Page 103. Lines 2 te 5. 

Two Mahommedans ask for justice from a Kazi 
hut one subsequently asks trial from a Kaffir 
judge on the grouud that he is his subject. Is it 
proper to confiscate his property and is he a 
heretic ? 

Answer :—If he doubts in the Shera and believes in 
the propriety of the English laws, he must be 
deemed guilty of heresy and should be killed. 
But if he does not disregard the Shera , he is 
to receive a different punishment. 





PART I. 


Sec IV— Cl. (b) The explanation in detail submitted 
to the Ruler . 

In August 1885, Sir Lepel came to Bhopal and 
had an interview with the Ruler on the 27th of 
that month. In the course of the conversation he 
spoke ill of me in no measured terms, but it is not 
proper to state here the whole conversation ; I will 
confine to those points only which require an explana¬ 
tion.. An explanation was called for by Col. Kincaid 
in his memorandum, dated the 31st August 1885, 
to the objections set forth in the letter of Sir Lepel, 
dated the 26th August 1885. A true copy of the 
explanation is given elsewhere but an amplification of 
it is given below. 

First objection to the Dewan Khutab. 

“The apparent object of publishing the Dewan 
Khutab is to give publicity to it in Egypt and 
Arabia.” 

Explanation.— The Resident states that the Dewan 
Khutab is a collection of benedictions read every 
Friday throughout the year. The book published in 
Egypt does not include the Khutba of Ismail and is 
not read out on every Friday. All the copies which 
included the Khutba of Ismail and published here, 
were collected and destroyed before Col. Bannerman. 
After the censure passed on me by the Government 
I did not compose or translate any book which might 
be deemed hostile to the Government. The Moadul 
6 


( 42 ) 


Obeid, the Raz Khasib, and others were composed 
by me, the Turjaman Wahabea and the Iqtrab-us- 
Saya were translated by me. They deal with J ehad, 
in general, the impropriety of declaring it in India, and 
the breach of agreement entered into with the British 
Government. They are clearly in support of the 
Government and in direct refutation of the doctrines 
of the Wahabees. The book published in Egypt 
may be examined for the satisfaction of the Resident 
who is anxious to see how far I have carried out 
the orders of the Government. I have placed India 
in the category of Dar-ul-Islam (Place of safety) to 
check the sedition-mongers and fanatics, 

(Second objection to the Gaibbae. 

“ The Gairbal or the History of Bhopal, in the 
passages dealing with the marriage of the daughter of 
the Begum and her*trip to Calcutta in 1882, shews 
that the writer has the object to excite the displeasure 
of the Ruler towards her daughter and son-in-law. 
The daughter, who is alleged indirectly to be a descen¬ 
dant not of the Royal Eamily, has a right inferior to 
that of Alumghir Mahommed Khan, who may 
eventually succeed to the throne.” 

Explanation :—There is a history of Bhopal 
which was translated by Mr. Barstow; but this 
is incomplete. It was the intention of the Ruler to 
complete the new history in three or four parts 
by including the subsequent events of Bhopal. One 
part was ready for publication but a copy was stolen 
from the press and sent to the Resident, who refused to 
give out the name of the thief, though the state asked 


( 43 ) 


for it in right earnest. The title page of this part bore 
the seal and signature of the Euler and notwith¬ 
standing this, the Eesident has come down on me. 

The narration of the trip to Calcutta is taken 
from the office records, and if history is meant to 
conceal the true facts, the “ Gaikbal” is undoubtedly 
open to objection. It is alleged: that the object of 
the hook was to excite the ill-feelings of the Euler 
towards her daughter. But was the Sultan Jehan in 
good odours with her mother before the compilation 
of the hook ? Por some time before the collection 
of the facts entered in the “Gaikbal,” the mother 
and daughter were on had terms with each other. 
The Eesident may well remember that the Begum 
strongly protested against the private visits which 
he paid to her daughter.- Was it not notoriously 
known in Bhopal that the daughter and son-in-law 
were hostile to the Euler ? But after all the Sultan 
Jehan is a daughter and the Euler is a mother. The 
feelings of a mother are quite unique. She must feel 
for her daughter, her actions may he misunderstood 
or misconstrued by others, hut nature will eventually 
prevail on her; she may he actuated by the best motives 
to train her daughter to obedience and loyalty. The 
Euler brought up Beelkis, the eldest daughter of the 
Sultan Jehan, and granted her a Jaigeer of Es, 20,000. 
This very fact speaks volumes against the story that the 
Begum is highly offended with her daughter. Those 
who give out this story do not exactly imagine the 
position of a mother who wants to bring round her dis¬ 
obedient child. 


( 44 ) 

As a matter of fact I tried to the best of my 
power to make up the family differences. I inter¬ 
ceded in behalf of the daughter on more than one 
occasion but I failed. I requested the Ruler to 
give a post to her son-in-law, but she was against 
the proposal. I believe the Resident might have 
read the passage which contains my recommendation. 

Alumghir Mahommed Khan is not my relative 
or friend. Even supposing for the sake of argu¬ 
ment, that I have an intention to see that he succeeds 
to the throne, is there any chance of carrying it 
into execution ? In the very face of it the idea is 
preposterous and I can hardly gain any thing thereby. 
I am in Bhopal for upwards of thirty-two years. I 
am fully aware of the conditions imposed on the 
State by the Paramount Power. Any attempt to 
disinherit the Sultan Jehan is foolish and absurd. 

In continuation of this charge Sir Lepel observes 
that the step-sons of the Begum are not friendly to 
me and hence they are stated to be notorious charac¬ 
ters and hostile to the State. 

I have reasons to believe that the two step-sons 
of the Begum gave out some time ago, that I had 
broken down the gate in their garden but it was 
totally unfounded. The perwana of Col. Kincaid, 
dated the 2Srd March 1882, is to the following 
e fj ec t _'‘A part of the garden will necessarily fall 
within the Railway Lines, the owners of the garden 
should be ordered by the Begum not to interfere 
with the Railway work.” 

This garden was gifted away to the Sultan Jehan by 


( ^5 ) 

the late Omrao Dullah. Acting under my advice the 
Begum gave the garden to her two step-sons. These 
young men incurred the displeasure of the Begum 
for acts of oppression and their Jaigeer was confis¬ 
cated. On my recommendation a money allowance 
was assigned to them.. Such was the conduct which 
I shewed to them. But the question whether they 
are notorious characters and hostile to the State, is 
one which the Buler alone can answer, 

Sir Lepel observes “ The Begum was induced to 
believe that it was the intention of the Resident to 
appoint the son-in.law as the minister of the State 
whereas it is wholly false.” 

It is assumed that the Begum, who has hitherto 
commanded the respect and admiration of the high 
authorities, is not alive to her own interest and that 
in lieu of gratitude for the favors shewn to' me, I 
intend to put my wife and benefactress in scrape by 
creating a rupture between her and the Agent to 
the Governor-General. 

The fact of the recommendation of the son-in-law 
for the post of the minister by the Resident will 
appear from the correspondence which passed on the 
subject. I would respectfully invite the attention 
of the Resident to his letters, dated the 4th February, 
and the 4th March 1882, and the replies thereto of 
the Begum. The incidental mention of the fact has 
bearing on the agreement of the son-in-law and his 
susequent conduct, but it was not meant to disparage 
the Resident. 

. Sir Lepel further observes—“ This has been en- 


( 46 ) 

tered in the history with the object of creating 
dissensions in the family of the Begum.” 

I would call upon the Begum, her daughter and 
son-in-law to state whether in the course of my life 
I adopted any step to create dissensions. As a matter 
of fact I treated the Sultan Jehan as a daughter, 
fondled her children and always espoused her cause 
to appease the wrath of the Buler. "What earthly 
benefit could I reap ? It was given out by the 
Sultan Jehan and her husband that I had in con¬ 
templation of marrying my son Aly Hossein Khan 
with Beelkis. Aly Hossein is a father of several 
children and Bellkis has not attained her marriage¬ 
able age. I executed a will, ten years ago, strictly 
forbidding my sons to marry in an affluent and non- 
Syed family. The result of such connection is the 
cause of vexations and annoyances. There is a dispute 
between the mother and the daughter, hence, the mar¬ 
riage of the grand-daughter especially with my son is 
out of the question. 

Sir Lepel again remarks—“ Begarding the sepa¬ 
rate branches of the Boyal Dynasty, false statements 
have been made to disgrace them.” 

The whole dispute hinges on the phrase false 
statement. It has not been shewn by the Resident 
that a particular statement is false. In the absence 
of such an allegation the charge shall remain unan¬ 
swered. The Buler under whose authority and con¬ 
trol the facts and events were collated will be the 
best person to meet the challenge of an accuser. 
History deals with stern facts, however unpalatable 


( 47 ) 

they may he. Baher in his autobiography or history 
described the defects in his own character and his 
own reverses and humiliations. The Ajabul Muk- 
dab speaks in disparaging terms of Timoor. Abdool 
Quadir of Bedoin wrote a history of Akbar condemn¬ 
ing him and his acts. Similarly the history of Alumghir 
by Niamut Khan Aly is full of sharp criticisms. 
Syed Ahmed Khan, in describing the Sepoy Revolt, 
has assigned the cause of it to the conduct of the 
English officers. The Gaibbal is a history and if 
it teems with stern facts it is not open to any censure. 

The Resident observes—“ As the book has not 
yet been circulated I need not argue on it.” 

This is an admission of a fact that the book is 
not accessible to the public and if there are passages, 
open to objection, they will not harm any body. But 
it is passing strange how the book found its way to 
Indore. The book must have been stolen and justice 
should be allowed to overtake the thief. I believe that 
Sir Lepel is not willing to give out the name of the 
thief, for reasons best known to him but incompre¬ 
hensible to me. 

I conclusion I would invite the attention of the 
Resident to the fact that the presumptions are always 
in favor of the accused, unless the contrary is shewn. 
No proof has been given to shew the falsity of any 
fact stated in the Gaibbal, and as such I claim the 
benefit of the presumptions regarding the charges 
brought by him on the false representation of my 
enemies. 


( 48 ) 


Third Objection . 

“The Tarjaman Wahabea published in 1884 was 
translated by Akbar Alim and the preface to it was 
composed by the Nawab and inserted therein against 
the will of the Translator. The preface is full of 
panegyrics on the Nawab.” 

The above charge is based upon the statement of 
the translator, but the statement was made exparte, 
and as such it should be accepted with the greatest 
caution. The preface is written in English and I 
am quite ignorant of this language. If the preface 
was written in Urdoo, the Resident will be good 
enough to call upon the translator to produce the 
original draft. As a matter of fact, the translator 
informed me of the contents of the preface written 
by him* and I asked him to score out the passage 
which was meant an eulogy on me. I received reli¬ 
able information, that the translator was set up by 
Ahmed Reza* the late minister of the State, who was 
dismissed from service, to make a false statement. 
The information was given to me by San jar Poet 
and his letter was forwarded to Col. Kincaid for 
perusal, but was never returned. Poor Sanjar incur¬ 
red the displeasure of the Politicals and was turned 
out by the Resident, and Ahmed Reza was provided 
with a post under the Nizam on the recommendation 
of Sir Lepel. 

It is alleged by Sir Lepel that Akbar A lim ., the 
translator, stated that the publication of the book in 
question, especially at a time when the false Mehdi 


( 49 ) 

was set up, is a breach of the friendship with the 
British Government. 

The view taken by Akbar Alim is not correct. 
The book is a history of the Wahabee creed and is 
based upon the Christian authorities. It is meant to 
strengthen the relation which exists between the Bri¬ 
tish Government and the Indian Mahommedans. The 
book was presented to Lord Bipon whose Private 
Secretary sent the following letter, dated the 28th 
December 1884, to the Begum. 

“ According to the wishes of Lord Bipon, I convey 
many thanks to you for the translation of the book 
of the Wahabees which was compiled by the Nawob 
consort &c.” 

On the occasion of the opening of the Bhopal 
State Bailway, a Durbar was held and thirteen copies 
were presented to the European officers. Would any 
man have the hardihood to do it, fully conscious of 
the fact that the books would bring ruin on him ? 

I have received letters from distinguished officers 
stating that the Government should be thankful to 
me for the publication of the book. 

Sir Lepel observes—“ With whatever object the 
book was published, Wahabeeism has been encouraged 
in the beginning and conclusion of the Gaiubal.” 

The Besident has not cited the passages on which 
the charge is founded. But I would invite his atten¬ 
tion to the pages numbered three to eight,. These 
pages and my conclusion totally refute the Wahabee 
creed and do not lend any support to it. The Editor 
of the Indian Chronicle, in its issue of the 6th April 
7 


( 50 ) 


1885, paid high compliments to the author of the 
Tubjaman Wahabea. The Editor is, I believe, a 
Christian and an Englishman. 

The presentation of the book to the distinguished 
Englishmen and the complimentary remarks of an 
English Editor tend to shew that the publication of 
the book was made with an object other than what 
was represented to, and believed by, Sir Lepel. 

Fourth Objection. 

“The Iqtbab-us-Saya was compiled by the Nawab 
in April 1884 and published in 1885 in the name 
of his son. The book is especially directed against 
the British Government. 

Explanation .—The book in question is written in 
Urdoo and not in Arabic language and is not incom¬ 
prehensible to the generality of men. This is a transla¬ 
tion from the Arabic book Isha-ul-asheat-tjs-Saya, 
which in general parlance goes by the name of Kaya- 
mutnameh (Book of Besurrection), like the Kayamat- 
nameh by Moulovie Bufi-u-din of Delhi in the Per¬ 
sian language, which has also been translated into 
Urdoo. Like other religious books on Islam it speaks 
inter alia of the appearance of Mehdi and the ascen¬ 
sion of Messiah to heaven as the signs of the resurrec¬ 
tion. No date, month or year has been fixed for it. 
The circumstances for the appearance of the promised 
v Mehdi are written in the Hadis and all Kyamutna- 
meh books; they have been published from a long 
time. The book in question contains nothing new. 
Every author quotes in his book from other reli¬ 
gious books,—this is no offence in the eye of law or 


( 51 ) 

religion. According to the religion of the Christians; 
the advent of Messiah is expected; The Sheas expect 
the appearance of the Mehdi, who is concealed some¬ 
where in Serdabali Samra, though they do not specify 
the time. The Hindoos are in expectation of an 
Avatar, the Hebrews of Dujjal and the Mahomme- 
dans of Mehdi and' Messiah.- This is in no way 
inimical to the interests of the British Government. 
In this book the claim of the Soudan man has been 
written and the signs of the appearance of the pro¬ 
mised Mehdi are described. This is rather in support 
of the Government. In the Arabic language there are 
many Kayamutnamahs which mention of the- Mehdi* 
e. g. Tuz-keba Kubtabi Kitab-a-Saya. These books 
especially treat of the subject. The Simon Abba 
and other theological books speak generally of the 
signs of the appearance of the promised Mehdi. 
These books have been published several times in 
India and Arabia. The contents of these* books have 
been translated by me without any comment. On the 
other hand I have shewn that the claimant of Soudan 
is not the promised Mehdi as he is wanting in the 
traits which the true Mehdi is supposed to possess.: 
All claimants who appeared before were false 
pretenders. The book in question is not the only 
book in which the promised Mehdi is treated but 
there are many books on the subject g. (1) Fkdul- 
daraji-abul-wul Mortaji by Yeue tbi Ahia (2) TJrf 
urdi Fil Akberul Mehdi by Jalaludin Seoti ; 
(3) Quool Mooktosir Filalul Montagirby Ibn IIeijeb 
Mukki, (4) Musrcib Urdi Fimazabul-Mehdi by 


( 52 ) 


Alikary Hanifi, (5) Burhan Fiahival Melidi Akher- 
zama by Aly Mirtaki Hanifa, (6) Towji Fi 
Tawatir Majai Fil Montagir-u-Dijjal by Ulmasi, 
(7) Kalam Majdi Fizulurul Melidi , (8) Tarikh Ibnul 
Klialgoon and others. 

These books and treatises are available in India 
but no book or treatise speaks of the appearance 
of Mehdi at Soudan or in Egypt or in Turkistan. 
This is not even so mentioned by the Sheas, but on 
the other hand the promised Mehdi will pass through 
Medina and appear at Mecca. This also has been 
established in the Iqtrab Saya, to remove any doubts 
of those who may think, at the inducement of 
others or at the writings in the newspapers, that the 
claimant at Soudan is the true Mehdi, the book in 
question is meant to repudiate not only the claim of 
the pretender at Soudan but to expressly disaffirm vof 
his being a reformer. The question which calls for 
solution is whether the book in dispute is in support 
of, or in opposition to, the Government. The book 
is a true exposition of the Mahommedan creed without 
any fulsome adulation of the Government. All 
treatises on the promised Mehdi are on the lines 
adopted by me in this book i. e., on the religious 
maxims which shall remain unaltered. If the claim¬ 
ant at Soudan is the true Mehdi where is the Messiah 
whose advent is simultaneous with the appearance of 
the Mehdi, as affirmed in the Mahommedan creed and 
the religious treatises and clearly shewn in the Iqtrab 
Saya ? The opportune production of the book should 
be looked upon by the Government with favor as it 


( 53 ) 

deserves. The book in question shews that the date 
for the appearance of the promised Mehdi prophe¬ 
sied by the inspired Mahommedan Doctors has been 
proved untrue. None can speak of the date of his 
appearance. This fact was established in the HAJJiiii 
Kebama long before the publication of the book in 
question. Thus how can I recognise the pretenders 
like that of the Soudan-man unless they possess traits 
in their character described by me in the Iqtkab 
Saya and borrowed from the Hadis ? Thousands of 
Mehdis may arise but I shall take them to be false 
pretenders. The book in question is in support of, 
and not in opposition to, the Government. I think 
that Sir Lepel has understood the object of the book 
though he has taken objection to it as will appear 
from his writing. He says— 

“Even supposing that the object of the book 
is not to create disturbances, the publication of such 
a book is a breach of the friendship existing with 
the Government. 55 

_i Explanation. How can the book, which forcibly 
refutes the claim of the pretender at Soudan and 
repudiates the right of his being the Mehdi or a 
reformer, be said to create a breach of the friend¬ 
ship ? The book in question states that twenty such 
false claimants arose but were not recognised by 
the Mahommedan Doctors; the present pretender 
is, like Abdool Wahab, a disturber of the peace. 
Where is the proof to shew that the pretender, 
though not a Mehdi, is still a reformer ? What more 
can be written to refute the claims of the pretender. 


( 54 ) 

of Soudan ? The objection is taken against the tone 
and spirit of the hook, its contents and the conclu¬ 
sion drawn therein. But my explanation to the 
objections shall receive cordial support from persons 
who have the sense to understand the hook. 

Fifth Objection . 

“The Hidayat-tjs-Sail is in the Persian lan¬ 
guage. It seems to me that the object of the book 
is to incite the Mahommedans in India to wage war 
against the British Government. In 1881 the 
Government offered pardon to the Nawab but at that 
time the book in question was not taken into con¬ 
sideration. I would cite some sentences which have 
been translated into Urdoo in support of my views.” 

Explanation . The book in question was published 
in 1292 A.H. i,e. two years before the Government 
conveyed its censure. The Besident takes objection to 
some passages on the ground, that it was not pro¬ 
duced before the Government, but the warning given 
to me was meant to stop any further publication 
of the book called the Dewax Khutab or a book 
of that kind. If it be conceded that the book in 
question is seditious, the order of the Government was 
meant for future guidance and any objection on this 
score is uncalled for. But I am prepared to shew 
that the tone of the book is not seditious. There is 
not a single passage in the book which speaks of 
Jehad, or incites the people to fight. 

The passages quoted by the Besident are in the 
form of interrogatories and answers. The interro¬ 
gatories only are given below with my remarks. 


( 55 ) 

Q. I. Is it proper to allow tlie Kaffirs to lire in 
Arabia ? 

The answer given in my book is a translation 
of a pamphlet called Bunian. At page 91 line 10 it is 
stated that in the days of Syed Alloma Hossein, son 
of Ahmed Jallal, a resident of Yemen, some Hindu 
grain dealers had been to Yemen. The Syed was 
asked, to give an opinion as to the propriety of 
granting or withholding permission to the Hindus. 
The Syed in describing the Kaffirs (infidels) spoke 
of the Mashrakin Arabs, Mosaics and others as des¬ 
cribed in the texts of the Hadis, and expressed his 
views. The Nctsctvct (Nazarenes) means the residents 
of Nazareth at the time of Mahommed. This conver¬ 
sation has been recorded in the Bakhari, Muslim, 
and other books, which have been published at Delhi 
and Bombay. This dialogue has been the subject of 
commentaries by Noudee and others. It is also to 
be found in Mishkad and its Urdoo and Persian tran¬ 
slations with explanatory notes, which are available 
in India. At page 90 line 2 in my book, I have stated 
that the Hanifas consider it improper to expel the 
Nazarenes from Arabia. 

Thus it will appear that the passage referred to is 
not an expression of my own opinion. It has been 
referred to in many religious books without any 
protest on the part of the Government and I am at 
a loss to make out why objection has been taken to it. 

The second question referred to by the Resident 
is as follows :— 

“ Whether the Musalmans should reside in the 


( 56 ) 

country formerly owned by them and conquered by 
the Kaffirs.” 

Explanation . The question and reply are dealt 
with in the book at pages 94 to 103. At page 99 
the name of the author, whose views are set forth 
in the book, is given. The famous eight interrogato¬ 
ries and replies of Abdool Bahamian, son of Suleman, 
are given. Syed Abdool Barree of Zobair pub¬ 
lished an Arabic treatise on the interrogatories. The 
translation of it without any comment on my part 
has been given in the book. There is nothing of 
Jehad in the interrogatories and replies. My object 
in citing the Eutwas is to discuss on the question 
whether India is Dar-ttl Islam (land of peace) or 
Dar-tjl-harb (land of war). At page 130 I have 
expressed my own views and India has been put in 
the category of Dar-tjl Islam. Some learned Doctors 
of the Hanifa sect were of opinion that India is 
Dar-ttl Harb, but they never declared Jehad against 
the British Government, and peacefully repaired to 
Mecca. My object is to remove the false impression 
of the Mahommedan Doctors who consider India as 
Dar-ul-Harb. 

At page 114 I have discussed on the Wahabee 
creed and expressed my views at length in repudiation 
of it. 

The following is a quotation from my book— 

“ To call every follower of Islam in the East and 
the West—an adherent of Abdool Wahab, a follower 
of his creed and a Wahabee—is to say the least of it 
a cruel departure from justice—a murder of right 


( 57 ) 

and a false accusation against an innocent man. May 
Allah save me from evils and sins.” Page 115, line 8. 

At page 115, line 17, the following sentences 
occur. “ Speak not of the Wahabees and their ene¬ 
mies. They are long since at daggers-drawn and it is 
past all hopes of their being at quits.” 

The subject has been thus concluded by me—“ It 
is not incumbent upon me to follow Mahommed, son 
of Abdool Wahab, or Mahommed Ismail of Delhi.” 

Actuated by malice some Mahommedans are called 
Wahabees by their enemies so that the vials of wrath 
may be poured down on their heads. I have shewn 
the impropriety of such charges. India is Dar-ul 
Islam and there is no Kazi or Mufti to incite the 
Mahommedans to a war against the Government. 

The Resident has taken objections to the passages 
which are taken from a Treatise called Saeftabar. 
I have not expressed my concurrence with the views 
of the author of the Treatise. On the other hand, 
the Hidatet-us-Sail will shew my own views. In 
this book I have collected the maxims of others 
and expressed my own views which are not likely 
open to censure. The collection of authorities 
and opinions on religious matters is not an act cal¬ 
culated to excite sedition. No religious matter can 
be thoroughly discussed until the religious books are 
quoted and the opinions of the Theologues and 
Doctors are cited. The object of citing the authorities 
has been totally overlooked by the Resident. The 
conclusion, at which I have arrived, is that India is 
Dar-ul Islam— a conclusion which decidedly favors 


( 58 ) 


the cause of tlie Government. If my views are 
accepted by my co-religionists, they will cease to 
entertain any notions of Jehad; they will consider it 
a sin to break the Treaty and lastly they will not be 
guided by the mischievous Doctors. 


S. H. 



PART I. 


Sec IV.—Cl (c) A brief explanation with the memor¬ 
andum dated the 2nd September 1885 , 
of the State } forwarded to the Resident. 

A TREE COPY OE THE EXPLANATION SENT TO 

the Resident on the 2nd September 1885, 

I Rave seen carefully tlie remarks of tlie Resident* 
The translation of which was read out by him to the 
Ruler, on the 28th March 1885, in my presence and 
which were forwarded to the State with a memoram 
dum on the 31st August 1885, It seems that the 
four books composed by me are supposed to be against 
the Government and it was for this reason I was 
asked to forward an explanation. The following 
explanation was given; 

1st* Objection against the Dewan Khutub alias 
Sanatul Kamila, 

The Dewan Khetab or Sanatel Kamila was 
not composed by me. The book composed by me 
is called Moiz Hosna a collection of the prayers 
offered on Triday throughout the year and composed 
by the learned Doctors of the olden days. The 
preface gives the names of those Doctors. The book, 
in question, is not my composition. It contains no 
Khetba against the British Government; but deals 
with prayers and benedictions. In the conclusion 
of the book a Khetba composed by Moulovie 
Mahomul Ismail of Delihi is to be found but it 


( 60 ) 


does not preach Jehad against the British Govern¬ 
ment. The maxims on Jehad are given therein like 
those in the Koran and other religions hooks. The 
Khutbas collected were, several times, published at 
Calcutta and Bombay. On the 21st March 1881, 
Col. Bannerman censured me for the Khutra of 
Ismail of Delhi; and all copies of the Khtjtbas 
in question which were available at the time, 
were produced before, and destroyed by him. The 
Besident remarks—“ How far has the Nawab carried 
out the orders of the Government ? I have carried 
out the orders of the Government to the best of 
my power. The book was published without the 
Khutba in question. Since then I did not collect 
any Khutba of the kind. On the other hand I 
published books in support of the Government, and 
in opposition to Khutba in question, as will be 
hereinafter stated. 

2nd. Objection against the “Gairbal.” Sir Lepel 
has dwelt upon the objections at great length in his 
remarks. I am responsible for it to this extent only 
that the history was caused by the Begum to be 
written by me. There were four parts, and one 
part only was about to be published when it was 
sent for by the Besident, but in reply the Buler 
promised to send it on its completion. The time for 
completion did not arrive nor was there any circula¬ 
tion of it. There were two kinds of subjects dealt 
with in the book. One was the narration of private 
events and the conduct of the daughter and son-in- 
law and the state-members. The correctness or 


( 61 ) 

otherwise of the narration can be certified by the 
Begum. I had nothing to do with the private events 
nor did I express my views to the prejudice of 
the daughter and others. No body is dissatisfied 
with his children at the instigation of others, until 
he is assured of the improper conduct with ocular 
and auricular proofs. 

The other subject dealt with, is the account of 
the trip to Calcutta, which was recorded in the office 
and which may be verified by the offi.ce papers. 
History as a rule deals with true facts and no 
history is an exception to it, in whatever lan¬ 
guage it is written. The history of Bedaun written 
in the days of Akbar is full of condemnation of his 
conduct and actions. The history of Babar composed 
by him speaks of his proper and improper conduct. 
The object of the historian is to collect all true 
events. The Begum did not publish or circulate 
the book. It is not with me. It is for this reason 
that the Resident justly remarks—“that in as much 
as the circulation of the book in question has not 
been made I do not deem it proper to argue on 
the subject in full detail” 

3rd. Objection against the Turjaman-Wahabea— 
which deals with the facts and circumstances of the 
Wahabee sect taken from the Arabic histories com¬ 
posed by the Christian and other authors and their 
names are cited in the book. The book is meant to 
prove that the Mahommedans of India are not hostile 
to th£ British Government. Out of sheer enmity one 
calls the other Wahabee and annoys him. The book is 


( 62 ) 

in tlie nature of a history. The real object in publish* 
ing the hook is that the Government may not suspect 
its subjects—who are bound to be grateful for 
the blessings they enjoy. It is for this reason that 
the newspapers have commended the book. The 
Indian Chronicle, an English paper, in its issue 
of the 6tli April 1885, says in commenting on the 
book that the sensible and just men and the 
British Government should be thankful t o> the 
Nawab. I am not acquainted with the Editor who 
has done justice to the book. If the book had 
been hostile to the Government, the Editor would 
not have paid such compliments, but on the other 
hand would have condemned it. The book was 
presented to Lord Bipon by the Begum for which 
thanks were conveyed by him in a letter dated 
the 28th December 1881. 

The Besident writes that the preface was com¬ 
posed by Akbar Alim, but it was cancelled, and in 
lieu of it, another was composed by the Nawab against 
the express wishes of the translator. 

The preface does not breathe a single word against 
the Government. I did not request the translator 
to write any preface. I am not acquainted with 
the English language. 

The Besident writes to say that in the book in 
question, it has been argued that the Mahommedans 
in India who are called Wahabees are sincere, faith¬ 
ful and peace-abiding men.” 

I cannot make out what objection can be .taken 
to it, especially when I affirm that there are no 


( 63 ) 

Wahabees in India. They are said to live in Ncjed, 
One, out of enmity, calls another Wahabee, though 
in reality he is not. The British Government is aware 
of this, and hence the people are grateful to it, and 
enjoy their days happily and peacefully. The men 
who are called Wahabees by their enemies never 
created any disturbance against the Government. If 
they had been Wahabees they would have been found 
out. The book referred to tends rather to keep up 
the tranquility in the land. 

4th. Objection against Iqtrab Saya which deals 
with the past, present and future events which 
are set forth uniformly in all religious books 
of the Mahommedans. Moreover it is a tran¬ 
slation of the Isha-ashrab-u-Saya which is famous 
for the Resurrection. In the book wherever the 
promised Mehdi is mentioned, the false claims of the 
Mehdi of Soudan have been proved. This is not 
in opposition to the Government, but is consistent 
with the faith of the Islamites. The remark that 
the day of the promised Mehdi is at hand, has been 
often said in all religious books, but no date has been 
specified. It does not follow that the Mehdi of 
Soudan is the promised Mehdi whose advent is at 
hand. The prayers of the learned Doctors in days 
gone-by repeat the same tiling. The prayers run 
thus:—“ May my resurrection take place simultane¬ 
ously with the advent of the Mehdi and Messiah. 
May God offer me a seat with Mehdi and Messiah on 
the judgment day.” 


Shahabudin Saherwarby.’ 


( 64 > 


“ ‘Whosoever sees 
my Salams to him.” 


Maliommed Melidi may offer 
Shah Kuobulla. 


Shah Wali-ullah, Mohadis of Delhi, in his will 
enjoined on giving his Salams to Messiah. 

The above passages do not shew that the day of 
the advent of the true Melidi is the day of the 
appearance of the false Mehdi; the promised Melidi 
and the Messiah of the Christians will appear simul¬ 
taneously. The preface in the hook in question 
speaks of twenty such false Melidis who have gone 
by. Similarly the Mehdi of Soudan is another false 
Mehdi. The object of this hook is to prevent the 
ignorant Mahommedans recognising the false preten¬ 
der at Soudan as the true Mehdi. The promised Mehdi, 
who is spoken of in all religious hooks of the Sheas 
and Sunnis, will appear simultaneously with the 
Messiah—a fact known to all Mahommedans, hut no 
date has been fixed for it. The circumstances and 
signs, as described in all religious hooks, are quoted 
in m y hook to keep the IRahommedans on then guard 
so that they may not be misled and imposed on by 
false Mehdi. My first object was to support the 
Government and my second object was to save my 
co-religionists from errors. The Resident has mis¬ 
construed some sentences in the book against its 
context. This will be corroborated by men who are 
acquainted with the Hadis and who are alive to a 
sense of justice. In this book it is written that at 
the time of the promised Mehdi, the kings of India 


( 65 ) 

will be brought before him on arrest. This is only 
a translation of the book referred to above which is 
accessible at all places. The names of the Kings are 
not mentioned, directly or indirectly, in the original 
books ; nor in their translations, nor in the Hadis. 
The original book speaks of “Mqolook Hind” without 
specifying the era. (Note.—In chapter III of the 
original book it is written that this book was complied 
at Medina in 1076 A. H.) The phrase “ Moolook 
Hind” as used in the book in the chapter on re¬ 
surrection, cannot directly or by implication refer to 
the Queen of England and the Empress of India* 
The Mehdi of Soudan has been compared with Abdool 
Wahab with this object that the Musulmans in 
India may not have anything to do with the false 
Mehdi, in the same way as they had nothing to do 
with Abdool Wahab. The claims of the false Mehdi 
like those of Wahab have no foundation. There is 
not a single word in the book to shew that the false 
Mehdi is a prophet, as has been understood, and 
referred to, by the Resident. No Mussalman, 
literate or illiterate, professes to accept the pre¬ 
tender as a Prophet, as no prophet is expected. 
The professions of each claimant should not be 
accepted. One who professes to be a reformer 
is believed with the greatest caution, but the 
reformation is not necessarily followed by Jehad- 
such are the sentiments in my writings. How 
can objection be taken to this ? On the other hand 
I have shewn that the false Mehdi is not a 
reformer. His claims are only stated in the news- 
9 


( 66 ) 


papers and all sncli statements are not true. At 
page 121 in my book I have dwelt on this point 
forcibly, stating that the Mussulmans are inclined 
to believe every Mehdi or ‘reformer when they 
hear a Bazar-Gossip; this is in refutation of the 
false claims of the Soudan man. The Resident is 
inclined to think that according to my views if 
the Mehdi of Soudan proves to be a Syed, he 
will be deemed as the true Mehdi—a hypothesis 
not borne out by any passage in my book or by 
the beliefs of the Mahommedans. The Hadis, which 
are deemed less authoritative, do not even mention 
the appearance of the promised Mehdi at Soudan, 
be he a Syed or Sheik. The false Mehdi may 
claim thousand times to be a Syed, but he can 
never be deemed as the true Mehdi, as it is against 
the established faith of Islam—at Medina alone 
will the promised Mehdi be born. 

5 th. Objection against the Hxdyet-us-Sail. The 
maxims stated therein are alleged to be adverse 
to the British Government as will appear from 
the sentences quoted from it. 

At pages from 94, query 32, to page 104, 
query 39, the interrogatories and replies known as 
the eight queries, are given; they are the tran¬ 
slation of an Arabic treatise composed by Abdoola, 
son of Abdool Barry, who was born in Arabia. The 
Hidayet-tts-Sail is a collection of several treatises 
translated, but was not composed by me. One 
who expresses his original thoughts and ideas in 
his writings and logically supports his own views. 


( 67 ) 


is said to compose a book. The book in question 
consists of texts of others, quoted at random and 
arranged systematically without testing the correct¬ 
ness or otherwise of the texts. The queries, num¬ 
bered eight referred to above, have been translated 
literally from the original Arabic book. In the 
original book the author has condemned all creeds 
other than Mahommadanism. The Mahommedan 
dissenters, the four inspired books, the Mosaics 
and others have been also condemned. The 
English Government in India has not been traduced 
anywhere nor is there any mention of Jehad; 
Different kinds of theological texts are cited 
therein and the eight queries are also quoted from 
a different author. In support of my contention 
that the translation has only been made by me I 
may refer to any learned man to see the original 
book. There are passages in the original book 
which may be considered to be in support of 
Wahabeeism or the theory of Dah-ul Hakb. They 
have been translated but I have added two interroga¬ 
tories with their replies; one is an express repudiation 
of Wahabeeism vide page 111 and the other has 
reference to Dah-tjl Haub vide page 130; I have 
proved that India is Dar-ul-Islam and not JDar-ul- 
harb. These two questions and answers are given 
in refutation of the famous eight queries; and 
I am responsible for this writing only as it is neither 
borrowed nor translated. The IIidayet-tjs-Sail is a 
translation and compilation from the Arabic books 
in the same way as texts pro and con are collected 


( 68 ) 

and compiled in religious books. Moreover the 
Ilidayet-us- Sail was compiled ten years ago long 
before the Mujmiah Khutab , but all the copies 
have been disposed of. 

I have a fancy to all learned books in the 
Arabic language, and some of them I have translated. 
As a resident in a native state I am not aware 
of the law which prohibits the translation and 
compilation of the books. In every country 
religious books are compiled; the Mahommedans 
and Christians carry on their religious controversy 
in their books but that is not considered objec¬ 
tionable; such writings and arguments have not 
created disturbances anywhere. But this is beside 
the question. Since the day I was censured by 
Col. Bannerman for the book composed by others, 
I have not translated or published any book of 
the kind. I have published treatises on two maxims 
based on religion with the object of shewing to 
the Government my gratitude and thankfulness 
for the .rank and dignity conferred on me. Xo 
loyal Mussalman or well-wisher of the Govern¬ 
ment has surpassed me in the mode I have ob¬ 
served in the two books. Those treatises also 
have been called seditious. I send them for the 
perusal of the Government. At page 33 I have 
clearly stated that the requirements of the Jehad 
are wanting and at page 39, I have . dwelt on 
the evils of the breach of the Treaties. Both 
[ these subjects have been discussed after a refer¬ 
ence to all religious books. The same subjects 


( 69 ) 

liave been treated in the form of two questions 
and answers in the Hidayet-us-Sail and in the 
Mahadul obaid. If any thing objectionable was 
written in any book it was borrowed or tran¬ 
slated from others; but I have not written anything 
in its support. Since the day I was censured, I 
have given up the habit of translating the books. 
The Resident and the Government of India, the 
fountain of justice, will be good enough to see 
my own treatises and compositions referred to 
above, to ascertain how far have I supported the 
government in its cause, how I have dwelt on the 
Jehad to induce the Mahommedans to give it up 
and how I have explained to the Native chiefs 
the desirability of observing the Treaties and to be 
friendly towards the Paramount Power. It would 
be a monstrous ingratitude and huge folly on my 
part to write or do intentionally such things 
against the British Government, to whom I owe an 
immense debt of endless gratitude,-a govern¬ 

ment which conferred on me rank and dignity on 
the ground that I am a relative of a faithful and 
devoted chief. Such a conduct is monstrous 

ingratitude to my benefactress. I am in Bhopal from 
my boyhood. The late Secundar Begum treated me 
kindly and respectfully before the mutiny. I have 
been here for the last thirty-two years. I have 
not committed any act which might be deemed 
adverse to the Government, and the State, other¬ 
wise I would not have permitted me to stay here. 

I have been always engaged in studies of the 



( 70 ) 

Arabic books. I had no leisure to read tlie laws' 
of the Indian Legislature; otherwise I would not 
have been reduced to such a plight, such charges 
would not have been brought against me and I 
would not have been deemed an enemy of the 
Government. In reality I am a faithful and de¬ 
voted adherent of the Government since I have 
been the Consort to Her Highness the Begum. I 
have never been sparing to render every help to 
the Government agreeable to the wishes of the 
Ruler, as in the instances of the Cabul War, 
Soudan war, and carrying out the orders of the 
Resident and the Political Agent. One thing pecu¬ 
liar in the Bhopal state is that religious discussion 
and fanaticism against Christinity and Waliabeeism 
have never found a place. I trust that the answer 
which is given by me, in the sincerity of my 
heart, with the two treatises may be submitted 
to the Government of India and that respectable 
Doctors, learned in the Hadis and residing in 
India, who are well conversant with the tone 
and spirit of the book, and who are loyal and 
devoted subjects of the Government, may be referred 
to for testing the book and my statement. 

S. H. 



PART 1. 


Section 5 .—A general explanation on the hooks 
compiled and composed by me. 

The total number of books, compilled and 
published by me, is eighty; out of them Tafsir- 
Futhol-Bayan forms the largest volume and the 
small treatises containing maxims, which form the 
largest portion of my work, consist of two pages. 
All these books treat of twenty- eight different 
subjects and do not exclusively deal with religion. 
Out of these, ten were published at Constantinople, 
seven in Egypt and the rest at Bhopal, Cawnpore, 
Delhi, Agra and other places. Some were pub¬ 
lished by some proprietors of Press of their own 
accord and not at my request; for example the 
proprietor of the Jawa-ib Press published JBula- 
gafi-usul-illoga, Nashootus-SaJcran, Gasnool-bayan 
and Logut-ul-Ijlan. The publishers of these hooks 
are generally of the Hanifa sect, who, as a rule, 
do not publish books which are against their 
own creed, especially the Turks and the Egyp¬ 
tians who are bigoted followers of the Hanifa 
creed and have laws prohibiting them to publish 
books against their religion; if my books savour 
of Wahabeeism they would not have published 
them. The Khedive and the Sultan are the fol¬ 
lowers of the Hanifa creed. Mahommed-ali Pasha 


( 72 ) 

was tlie person who expelled the Wahabees from 
Arabia as is described in the history published 
in Egypt. The Sultan of Turkey does not allow the 
publication of any book against his religion within 
his territory and the Bolak Press in Egypt and 
the Jawaib Press at Constantinople are within his 
jurisdiction. But the books on Fika (Theology) 
published there by the followers of Hanifa, contain 
Jehad, inter alia with the prayers and bene¬ 
dictions similar to the books published at Delhi, 
Calcutta, Lucknow, Bombay and Meerat. Both in 
India and Turkey these books are wide in circula¬ 
tion. Eight of my books speak of Jehad, prayers, 
and benedictions like the books on Theology without 
any spark of Wahabeeism. Of the eight books 
four are in the Arabic, two in the Urdoo and two 
in the Persian language. They contain the general 
maxims and sayings on Jehad as written in the 
books of the Hanifas from the olden days. Is there 
any theological book among the Mahommedans 
which is without it ? Not to speak of the Shafi and 
Maliki sects, the books of the Hanifa sect alone 
may be read; they are published in all languages 
and are widely circulated throughout India. Is there 
any book, which has no chapter on Jehad? The 
reason of my mentioning this is that according to 
the opinion of the Englishmen, the followers of the 
Hanifa sect are not Wahabees. Their books speak 
of Jehad similarly, as the books of the Ahal Hadis 
sect. Vide Furlul Mooktear , Vaddul Mooktear , 
Tahtavi , Baharek-raik , Kunz , Qadury , Futiva - 


( 73 ) 

Serctjya, Khazunatul-Mooftee, Ashiao Nazdir, Jama - 
uUBomux , Futavi - (?*, Futavi-Ibrahim-Shahi, 
Kanhia, Jama-say Mr, Futavi-Bujazia, JauHrul 
Futavi, Shareh Bahbaniah, Fusool-Amadia , Moojtabi , 
Lholasa , JWw Alamghiri, Futwa Kazi Khan , 
FLidaya, Shara Bakaya. Out of these books the 
Shara-Bakaya has been translated into Urdop and 
Persian and commands a large circulation. The 
Far-ul-Moohtear has been translated into XJrdoo 
and published. These books are widely circulated 
throughout India. The Hanifa sect cites the Putwas 
from these books. 

The book on Filca of the Shaft sect has been 
published in Egypt and circulated throughout the 
world. Similarly among the Maliki and Hambili 
sects the book on Fika is wide in circulation. In 
all these books there, is a chapter on Jehad. At 
Calcutta, Bombay, Lahore and other places, the Kadis 
such as Seah Satta , Sunun , JDarmi JBlugulmaram , 
MishJcad and others have been published several 
times and circulated. The ITrdoo and Persian tran¬ 
slations of the Mishkad , the XJrdoo translation of the 
JKishara-kul-anwar , and the Urdoo translation of 
the Korane , contain ^Jeliad, its advantages, orders &c, 
more or less, either in the body or in the annotation 
of the books. The XJrdoo translations of the Muslim 
was published at Calcutta; the Persian and XJrdoo 
translations of the Mishkad were published at 
Calcutta and Bombay. All these books contain 
chapters on prayers, benedictions, and jehads. 
Similarly the Bauza-Nadya , the Muskul-khutam , 
10 


( T4 ) 

Futimh-id-ilcm, tlie Nahaj Mukbul , flie Bunian 
Mctrsoos and others and their translations con¬ 
tain a chapter on Jehad, but nowhere it is 
enjoined to declare Jehad agaipst the Govern¬ 
ment. All the hooks of the Hanifa sect and 
my eight hooks contain a chapter among others 
on Jehad. On the other hand there are many 
hooks published in India containing several chap¬ 
ters on Jehad. In some of my treatises, a few 
pages or leaves speak of Jehad. I cannot make 
out why I have been especially charged for this 
compilation. Of course I could he suspected if I 
had treated Jehad in my hook against the general 
practice of the Hanifa, Shea and Shafi sects, or 
if I had directed or incited war against the 
Government in the translation, issued any futwa to 
wage war against the Government, or any other 
Euler, collected any sinews of war, entertained 
any mutineer in the -State, spoken of Jehad at 
any private meeting, or been a Kazi , Mufti , Moll- 
tasib , JVcdz (Preacher), a Ndseh (Instructor). 
As a matter of fact the hooks, compiled by me, 
are the translations of the hooks, composed and 
published long since in the Persian and Arabic 
languages and circulated all around. The hooks, 
compiled or composed by me, do not contain a 
passage to which objection can be taken by the 
English Goverment; the passages have been 
misinterpreted and a false charge has been brought 
against me. 

Why should those, who translated into Urdoo 


( 75 ) 

the Shera- Vakaya , the Dur-ul-Mooktdr, the Mmheri- 
1ml-Anwar, the Mishkat-Shareef and others in which 
the maxims on Jehad are stated or the Koran and the 
Kadis , escape the censure ? The books compiled by 
me treat of twenty-eight different subjects; out of 
them six or seven books speak of the Fikah and the 
rest consist of Dictionary, Vocabulary, History and 
Biography of Soofia, Poems, Biography of the 
Poets and others. The books themselves if 

examined will bear me out. Some books treat 
of religion, like the Kadis and the Fikah , which 
have been published from a long time, in British 
India without protest. Moreover the persons who 
•made the collection of the Kadis and the Fikah 
are not Wahabees according to the historians and 
others. The disturbances of the Wahabees came to 
an end in 1818 and the Ilm Kadis and the Fikah were 
published and circulated long before and since the 
disturbance of the Wahabees. They are read in 
the schools and considered authorities from which 
Futwas are quoted by the kazis. A certificate of 
proficiency in these books is a thing which one 
is proud of; the followers of Hanifa sect, as a matter 
of course read and teach Mis-kat-sharif and 
obtain a certificate on the subject. The learned 
Doctors of Delhi belong to the Hanifa sect 
from olden times such as Shaikh Abdool Huq 
of Delhi, and the descendants of Shah-Wali-ullah 
Maliadis of Delhi. The Shaikh wrote out two 
commentaries on the Mishkat , one in the Arabic 
language called the Laniat , and the other the Ishat- 


( 76 ) 


ul-Lamat, in tlie Persian language. The two afore¬ 
said commentaries and the Markat-shureJi-miskat, 
written by Mallah Alikeri of the Hanifa sect, are 
generally read in India and other places. In all 
these books, the maxims on Jehad have been set 
forth. The translation of the Mishkat was published 
at Calcutta and Bombay, and has been in circu¬ 
lation throughout India. The descendants of 
Shah Wali-ullah obtain certificates in the Sadis. 
The late Mouloyie Kutab-udin, a distinguished 
member of the Delhi family, translated Mishkat 
into Urdoo and the translation, known as the Maza -- 
harul-huq , was published at Delhi and other 
places; but the original book and its translation no¬ 
where caused any disturbance nor did the Govern¬ 
ment take exception to it. The translator was not 
called a Wahabee nor any extreme step was taken 
against him by the Government as in my case. 
Under the above circumstances how can a charge 
be sustained against me until and unless it is done 
in the interest of my step-daughter, her husband 
and her two half-brothers, or for some other reasons 
not known to me ? Has any disturbance been caused 
by the publication of these books ? No book 
contains more stirring passages on Jehad than the 
Koran which is read by the old and young, and 
males and females, among the Mahommedans, 
but never has a Jehad been declared by any against 
the Government. No disturbance has been caused 
by my books, or by those published long since by 
the followers of the Hanifa sect. In 1881 I was 


( Ti ) 

verbally admonished for the publication of the 
Khutba of Moulovie Ismail of Delhi. Within 
the last six years I have not written any thing on 
Jehad, directly or indirectly, in my books, composed 
or translated; of course in my theological books 
published before 1881, I dwelt on Jehad on the 
lines of the Theologues. The Ibrat , which deals 
with Jehad, was compiled by me, in the same way as 
the author of the Kamoosool-loga has compiled the 
maxims of Jehad, in his treatises named the Ketab - 
IjtiJiad-fi-talebul-jehad and the Al-if-tizaz-fi-if-trazuU 
jehad, or as Shaik Ahmed, son of Abdool Dub, com¬ 
piled a work on Jehad called the Agd-forid. These 
books were published in Egypt. The Masharool - 
mliway-ala-masaroot-iis-huq was compiled by Malii- 
udin-Ahmed, son of Ibrahim of Nakhas, and also 
Moosliki from thirty-one different works. It contains 
twenty-one chapters on Jehad. It is a voluminous 
book and is famous for its treatment of Jehad. The 
Ibrat was published in 1294 A. H., two years before 
the publication of the Khutba of Moulovie Ismail, 
but it is out of print. 

In 1293 A. H., the Turkish war broke out 
and the Indian Mahommedans sent subscriptions 
to the Sultan, with the permission and approval 
of the British Government, at such a time, a 
short treatise called Ibrat, consisting of five 
chapters, was prepared with the express object of 
putting down the cupidity of Dussia. It begins with 
Jehad as given in the Hadis in the form of a glos¬ 
sary; the first and second chapters are quotations 


( 78 ) 

from the Koran on Jehad, the third and fourth 
chapters treat of orders and the Kadis , and the fifth 
chapter treats of the martyrs of the higher and 
lower kinds besides Jehad. The conclusion is an 
investigation on the subject of the leaving of the 
country of the Kaffirs. This treatise consists of 
154 pages and like the* FiJca is an abstract of Futhool 
Barry and Sharah Sahi Bokhari 8fc . 

All these books of theology are in wide circulation 
and read and taught throughout India and Egypt. 

This year ( i. e. 1886) a book called the Assabaji- 
moruful-Saliabea was published at Calcutta. It speaks 
of the Sahaba(the adherents of Mahommed) and their 
jehad and war. In my treatise called the Ibrat I have 
dwelt at length on Jehad and the conflicting opinions 
of the Hanifas and other sects; I have also shewn 
that it is our bounden duty to be obedient and loyal 
to the Euler under whom we enjoy safety and pro¬ 
tection and also to avoid sedition in all possible 
ways. I have described forty one kinds of martyrs 
other than those who preach Jehad. I have also 
referred to the maxims on Kijrat i. e. leaving 
Dar-ul-Karb (the land of the Kaffirs) for Dar-wl- 
Islam (land of safety), of the Hanifa, Shafi, and 
Ahl-Hadis sects and in conclusion I have express¬ 
ed doubts on these maxims as they are not con¬ 
sistent with the Shara. At page 139, line 12, I 
have shewn the expediency and safety of avoiding 
the doubtful Kadis to preserve the faith and dig¬ 
nity of one. Again at page 140, line 9 the purport 
of the treatise Saeftabor is clearly set forth. 


( 79 ) 

This is the treatise of Syed Abdoola, son of Abdool 
Barry, son of Maliommed of late, published in 
1271 A. H.) ; its translation was given in the 
Hidayet-us-Sail to which Sir Lepel Griffin has 
taken objection, on the score that the book em¬ 
bodies my sayings and views, though the 
author of the original book is a different person 
altogether. My writings are in support of the 
Government such as the Mawadul Abaid, the Rouz 
Khosib , the Turjaman Wahabea , and the Iqtrab 
Saya. 

Bronx these books isolated sentences and passages 
have been cited to shew that they are hostile to the 
Government; but they are quite against the con¬ 
text. A reply in detail quoting the sentences 
from these books, has been given by the editor 
of Ishat-us-Soonna of Lahore and was published 
in the Advocate of India ” in its supple-ment. 
It is given separately and marked App. B. 

The opinions of the learned men in India, 
on my works, are given separately in App. A. 

S. H. 



PART II. 


Section. I. 

The charges oe maladministration by 
Sir Lepel Grieein and the explana¬ 
tions oe Syed Sediqtje Hossein Khan. 

“The Nawob has reduced the poicers of 
the State officials and taken the whole 
work in his own hand ” 

Explanation. 

The state papers will shew the powers, with 
which the officials were invested in the reign 
of the late Nawob Secandar Begum and the 
present Ruler. To the best of my knowledge, 
the powers, jurisdiction and pay of the officials 
were increased after the accession of the present 
Ruler to the throne. A table shewing the above 
facts was forwarded by the state to the Resident 
who did not moot out the subject again. It was 

no duty of mine to discharge the duties of any 

official, to try any case and to inflict punishment 
on the criminals for any offence, or the officials 

for any dereliction of duty. These facts could 

he easily sifted by referring to the office papers, 
and the falsity or otherwise of the charges 
will he apparent. 


( 81 ) 


Second Charge . 

“ The Jaigeers were resumed, or caused to 
he resumed, hy the Nawob” 

Explanation. 

The Euler has the exclusive right to resume 
a Jaigeer, and such right could not he exercised 
arbitrarily or without rhyme or reason. Jaigeers 
are bestowed on persons who are loyal to, and 
in the good graces of, the Euler, but the resump¬ 
tion « is on account of disloyalty or disobedience. 
There were two cases of resumption in the reign 
of the present Euler. 

(1) Miah Yasin Mahommed Khan, a jaigeer- 
dar, was not on bad terms with me. He was 
found to be disloyal and rebellious and his 
property was consequently confiscated. Sir Lepel 
threatened me when the Euler was reluctant to 
restore the Jaigeer. The proceedings of Sir Lepel 
Which terminated with the restoration of the 
Jaigeer need no mention as it is a fact noto- 
riously known in Bhopal. 

(2) Mufti Eussool was attached to the Deori 
State, and was indebted to it to a large extent. 
He was suspected to have committed many 
treasonable acts. He was dismissed from service 
under the instructions of General Daly. After 
the death of the Kudsia Begum, the Jaigeer of 
Eussool Mufti was confiscated but was subse¬ 
ll 


< 82 ) 

quently restored to him by the Ruler in 1304 
A. H., on a petition submitted by him. 

The Agent has not cited any instance but has 
charged me generally. The two cases cited by 
me will shew whether any charge can be brought 
home to me. But if I had any hand in the 
matter of this kind, I should have been treated 
otherwise by the Resident, for the munificent 
gifts of the Begum, to her daughter, son-in-law, 
grand-daughter and others. At any rate I should 
deem it not proper to dwell upon this point, as 
the charge is quite vague and indefinite, and I 
have reasons to believe that it is not well 
founded. 

Third Charge. 

“ The Nawob has appointed many relatives 
in the State ” 

Explanation. 

Since my marriage with the present Ruler 
I have never recommended any relative or country¬ 
man of mine for any post. The late Jamal- 
udin was a relation of mine by marriage, but 
he was appointed as the Eirst Minister in the 
days of the late Secandar Begum. Though a 
relative, I always kept aloof from him—a fact 
well-known in Bhopal. Except a cousin (son of 
maternal uncle) I have no relative who is an 
official in the State. But this cousin of mine is 


( 83 ) 

not a State official, but a private servant of the 
Euler and was appointed in the reign of the late 
Nawab Secandar Begum. 

'Fourth Charge . 

fC In criminal matters the Nawob has com¬ 
mitted acts of oppression” 

Explanation :— 

It seems that the Agent to the Governor-General 
presumed my guilt in each and every case in which an 
official was to blame. The criminal courts take cogni¬ 
sance of criminal matters and I cannot make out 
bow, in the name of justice. I am taken to task 
for a matter for which I repudiate all my respon¬ 
sibility. The Agent to the Governor-General deemed 
it proper to interfere in the following cases and 
the facts, set forth below, will shew how far any 
blame may rest on me. 

(1) Muzbut Singh, a life convict, was let off 
scot-free by the Political Agent. This man was 
tried by the Nazim, Eastern Division, and the 
report, submitted by him, will shew how and of 
what offences he was convicted. Sir Lepel trans¬ 
ferred the case to the court of the Political Agent, 
and by one stroke of pen all the punishments, in¬ 
flicted on Muzbut Singh, were cancelled, all the 
proceedings of the criminal courts were quashed 
and the notorious Muzbut Singh was allowed ta 
be quite at large in Bhopal. 


( 84 ) 


(2) One Vilayet Hossein was tried and con¬ 
victed by Akbar Aly and this was well known to 
Col. Kincaid, the Political Agent. While in prison 
mortifications set in the legs of the said Vilayet 
Hossein and it was fonnd unsafe to keep him in 
prison and so Ahmed Reza, the late minister, re¬ 
leased him. Before the release of the prisoner 
there were some complaints against the said Akbar 
Aly, and the result was that an inquiry and trial 
for the charges of misappropriation took place in 
the court of the second minister named Abdool- 
Aly. It was notoriously known that Abdool Aly 
was not well-disposed towards the said Akbar Aly, 
but in spite of this, the inquiry and trial resulted 
in favor of Akbar Aly. The Resident was pleased 
to direct the transfer and subsequently the dismis¬ 
sal of the said Akbar Aly and the Ruler did not 
hesitate to carry out his orders. The old case of 
Vilayet Hossein was raked up and a criminal 
charge was brought against Akbar Aly. Under 
the instructions of Sir Lepel, Akbar Aly was put 
on his trial in the court of the Political Agent, 
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. 

It is alleged that Akbar Aly was a creature of 
mine ‘and that I countenanced his acts and thereby 
committed oppression. The above facts shew that, 
directly or indirectly, I did not lend any kind of 
support to him. The fact of the release of Vilayet 
Hossein speaks volumes in favor of the State that 
justice, and not oppression, was its chief and sole 
aim. The transfer, dismissal and subsequent trial 


( 85 ) 

of Akbar Aly without any murmur on the part of 
the State, refute the charge brought against me 
with regard to Akbar Aly. That he was never 
my protege will be clear from the fact that he 
was entertained by the late Secandar Begum. 

(3.) Sala-udin, an old servant of the State, 
was ' removed . from the kotwali , degraded on a 
reduced pay,. and was subsequently asked to retire. 
Col. Kincaid recommended for his pension, but 
under the orders of Sir Lepel, he was tried by the 
Political Agent and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous 
imprisonment. 

The three important cases are stated above to 
shew how far I committed acts of oppression by 
countenancing the officials in charge of the courts. 
If the Resident means to -say, that I counte¬ 
nanced the officials in criminal matters, the cases 
of Akbar Aly and Salaudin will refute the charge. 
If he means that in criminal matters I com¬ 
mitted acts of oppression on the accused I will 
refer to the petition of Muzbut Singh to shew 
that I was not accused of any high-handedness. 
As a matter of fact, I had nothing to do with 
the criminal cases. 

The charge is as usual vague and indefinite. 


( 86 ) 


Fifth Charge . 

“ The assessment was hard and there was 
a general complaint .” 

Explanation :— 

The Agent to the Governor General brings 
this charge against me, though I was never a 
party to the settlement. Even if it be conceded; 
that I gave advice in this matter, I do not see 
how a charge, like this, can stand until and 
unless an inquiry is made and proofs are adduced 
for the same. The Resident has never inspected 
the Revenue Records and still he goes the length 
of bringing a charge against the State, and also 
against me personally. 

In Bhopal, the system is different from what 
Sir Lepel has seen in the Punjab. The proprie¬ 
tary right vests in the State and the Mastagirs 
have a qualified right in the collection of the rents. 

The settlement began in the days of the late 
Nawob Secandar Begum, i. e. } in 1277 Euslee. The 
settlement work was entrusted to Moonshee Wasiat 
Aly, and the pottahs were granted by Thacoor 
Prasad Mahatmin Rafter Huzzoor, under the su¬ 
pervision of the late JKadurulmdham . All inquiries 
and demarcations were completed by Wasiat Aly 
and Mahommed Abbas. On the report of the late 
Madurul Maham, Thacoor Prosad was removed, 
and Mahommed Hossein was put in his stead, 
but was subsequently removed. The boundary 


( S7 ) 

marks and the standard rates were fixed by Wasiat 
Aly with the concurrence of Thacoor Prosad and 
the State Council. The maps and survey papers 
bear the signatures of (1) the Survey officer (2) 
the Girdawar (3) Monserim (4) Sadar Monserim 
(o) Mohatmim zillah (6) four or five farmers 
(7) Tehsildar (8) Kanoongoe (9) Putwary. Sub¬ 
sequent to the preparation of the Revenue papers 
the Dawl pottahs were granted to the farmers. 
The Madarul-Maham and the Revenue officers 
were strictly warned not to make the assessment 
with the object of increasing the income of the 
State. In 1298 A. H. the farmers and tenants 
were invited by proclamation, to put in objections, 
if they had any, and the Nazim, Western Zillah, 
was specially appointed to adjudicate the matters 
in dispute on the petitions. The remission and 
modification of the Revenue were ordered in 
several cases. 

The above facts will shew how far the State 
is to blame. The assessment is lighter in compari¬ 
son with that in Oude. When and how I inter¬ 
fered in this matter is a question which I fail 
to solve. I never had any thing to do personally; 
but supposing for the sake of argument, that I 
offered ^advice to the Ruler, how can I be accused 
when, as a matter of fact, there was remission 
of the Revenue and the arrears amounted to lacs 
of rupees, for which the farmers were not harassed. 


( 88 f 


Sixth Charge . 

“ The Hindus were forcibly converted by 
the Nawob, specially the female prisoners” 

Explanation :— 

I give an emphatic denial to the charge. I am 
not aware of any such instance. The Resident 
did not deem it proper to cite an instance for 
my edification. All that I can say, in respect 
to the charge, is that never in the course of my 
life I used any pressure on any person to change 
his creed, and such a course I deem to he most 
objectionable, as the Shera Shureef does not con¬ 
template of forcible conversion without free consent. 

Seventh Charge . 

u The Hindu Temples were demolished by 
the Nawob” 

Explanation :— 

Within the last forty years two temples of the 
Hindus were raised to the ground. One by the 
late Nawob Kudsia Begum, some forty years ago, 
and another by the late Secandar Begum, thirty 
years ago. 

There was a small old and dilapidated Temple 
under waters within the Tank called the Shah Jehani. 
Compensation was awarded to, hut refused by, the 
Poojari. 

Such sacrilegious acts were never committed 
nor caused to he committed by me. 


( 89 ) 


Eighth Charge. 

“ The Nawah dismissed the old officials and 
entertained his proteges in lieu of them." 

Explanation :— 

It is not desirable that I should discuss on the 
propriety and nature of a charge brought against 
me hut it is proper to state barely the facts 
to meet the accusations. It is out of place to 
mention the changes effected by Sir Repel, 
m the various departments entailing loss on the 
State. 

The officials, numbering 8000, consist of the 
Hindus and the IMahommedans ; the latter forming 
the minority. The hulk of these officials were 
entertained by the late Secandar Begum; of course 
the present Begum entertained new men in the 
places of those who died. The new officials were 
selected from among the officers and pensioners of 
the Government, hut their number would not ex¬ 
ceed eight. These new men are not my relatives, 
friends or countrymen; on the other hand, some of 
them are inimical to my interest and, on this 
score, got an increment in their pay at the in¬ 
stance of the Resident. 


12 


< 90 ) 


Ninth Charge . 

u The breach between the Ruler on one side 
and her daughter and son-in-law on the 
other was caused by the Nawab 

Explanation :— 

It is true that there is a rupture between 
the mother and the daughter, hut the question is 
what led to the rupture ? If one takes the trouble 
to ascertain the real causes, he will, I doubt not, 
be the last person in this world to shift the 
charge on my doomed head. It is a fact 
notoriously known in Bhopal that the Sultan Jehan 
has, by words and actions, proved disobedient and 
disloyal to the Euler. Was the Sultan Jehan insti¬ 
gated by me to be disloyal to her mother ? Or did 
I prevail upon the Euler to be dissatisfied with 
her daughter? The first question needs no answer. 
With regard to the second, I must say that it is 
incumbent upon my accusers to shew the motive 
for such an action. If there had been any motive 
on my part, it must be based either on self-interest 
or malice. During the life-time of the present 
Euler, the heir-apparent has no chance of succeeding 
to the throne and her powers, in the State as 
heir-apparent, are absolutely nil. If I had been 
actuated by any desire to exercise powers, the 
good or ill feeling, of the Begum towards her 
daughter and son-in-law, is quite irrelevant to the 
point. The idea of usurping the State, in the life-, 
time or after the death of the Begum, is out of 


C 91 ) 

tlie question. To satisfy my covetous feelings 

oi cupidity, if had any, I would not adopt suck 

a step, as the Euler has every right to satisfy me, 

and her action will inure during her life-time. 
The Sultan Jehan and her husband could not and 
can not stand m the way of my ambitious projects. 
I have been already provided with a rich and con¬ 
siderable Jaigeer, and my children have been similarly 
provided. Moreover any attempt to improve the- 
prospects of my children, the fruits of my first 
marriage, at the cost of the State, will be quite 
infructuose. Thus the acquisition of wealth, or the 
usurpation of any powers in the State, can not be 
checked by the Sultan Jehan and her husband. 

As regards malice, I do not remember any 
instance in which my feelings were excited against 
the couple. Since my marriage, I took considerable 
interest in the welfare of Ahmed Aly and the Sultan 
Jehan. It was I who recommended the former to 
the Begum before the marriage; it was I who 
watched the education and training of the young 
man, and lastly it was I who tried utmost to bring 
round Ahmed Aly from his reckless and bad habits. 

The Sultan Jehan incurred the displeasure of her 
mother, on account of her unbecoming conduct, 
and I would ask Her Highness to say whether 
or not I interceded in behalf of her daughter. 

I am exceedingly sorry to find that a false 
charge has been brought against me. Bor some* 
time past, I have cut off all connection with the 
outside world and have turned my undivided 


( 92 ) 

attention to prayers and thanksgivings to Allah, 
and I consider it to he a great sin to cause rup¬ 
ture between a mother and a daughter. I am afraid 
that Sir Lepel has been misinformed on this point 
and I am almost sanguine that an inquiry will 
lead to a different conclusion altogether. 

Tenth Charge . 

“ The Naivab collected one thousand Waha- 
bees among the officials in the State .” 

Explanation :—* 

The Resident was asked to furnish a list of 
the officials who were Wahabees hut he gave 
a list of the following ten persons. 

1. Abdool Majid Khan, Mahatmim State Press, 
serving the State since the time of the late Secan- 
dar Begum. 

2. Mouloyie Enayet-ullah, a resident of Bom¬ 
bay. This man never came to Bhopal. He died 
long since. 

3. Moulovie Wahid-u-Zuma. This is an offi¬ 
cial of the Hyderabad State and has never been 
to Bhopal. His brother Budi-u-Zuma was in 
service for some time but was dismissed on a 
charge of misappropriation of the State property. 

4. Moulovie Bashir Shaheb, Mahatmim Madrasa 
Sulemani. 

5. Moulovie Abdool Baree, the assistant of 
Moulovie Bashir. 


( 93 ) 

6. Mahommed Yasin, Maliatmim Masorif. 

7. Kazi Saheb. He has relatives who bold 
respectable posts under tlie British Government. 
He resigned of bis own accord. 

8. Hakim Mahommed Khan, Mabatmim Chari¬ 
table dispensaries. 

9. Syed Jamil Ahmed, Moburrer. 

10. Hafiz Karamut-ullah, Contractor of the 
Press. 

The above officials produced certificates and 
letters in English, copies of which are kept in the 
office, before they were appointed. Sir Lepel did 
not deem it necessary to dismiss them when he 
took the administration under his own supervision, 
though he had reasons (of his own) to believe that 
they were Wahabees. 

Eleventh Charge . 

“ The administration was open to eleven 
charges as set forth in the letters of the 
Resident , of the 16tli February and the 26th 
February repeetively .” 

Explanation :— 

I believe that Abdool Aly, the late second 
minister, w T rote out the explanations of the State, 
in reply to the eleven charges, brought by Sir 
Lepel and they were sent on the 28th February 
1886. I do not know whether the Besident was 
satisfied with the explanations, but it seems that 


( 94 ) 


lie was not, as immediately after, he introduced 
changes in the administration. The explanations 
of the State, I believe, are quite sufficient to 
meet the charges. 

Twelfth Charge . 

“ The JJrdoo newspapers were instigated by 
the Naioab to write strong articles in favor 
of the old systems and against the new 
ones.” 

Explanation :— 

The names of the newspapers are not specified; 
I am not a subscriber to any newspaper nor 
have I any connection with any journal. If there 
are articles in the newspapers against the new 
systems, the Editors should be taken to task. But 
I cannot help remarking that some English news¬ 
papers have attacked me mercilessly, and the way, 
in which the articles were written, leads me to 
believe that they were inspired by some one who 
had access to the State-papers. 


S. H. 



PART II. 


Section II. 

Summary of the charges and explanations. 

At the outset I may be permitted to state that in 
every civilised country no man is convicted without 
a hearing and that his guilt is proved by evidence 
oral or documentary. The charge of maladministra¬ 
tion has been brought home to me, and as a matter 
of course I hoped to find my accuser coming forward 
with proofs oral or documentary. The maladminis¬ 
tration of a state presupposes the existence and abuse 
of powers with which a person is invested and 
against whom the charge is brought forward, and 
in this particular case, it is incumbent on my accuser 
to prove by documents that the Ruling chief had 
invested me with plenary powers. As a matter of 
rule the Rliopal state forwarded memoranda and 
Khureetas to the Political officers at Sehore and 
Indore, conveying informations touching the ad¬ 
ministration. Sir Lepel Griffin might easily prove 
the first and the most important ingredient of the 
offence of maladministration by referring to his 
archives and finding out the order of the Ruler of 
Bhopal investing me with administrative powers. 
Por aught I know, nothing was done by him though 
Her Highness the Begum of Bhopal assured him 
on, more than one occassion that I had no hand in 
the administration. 

13 


( 98 ) 

I may venture to state here that prior to my 
marriage with the Buler I was in the stateservice 
with limited powers. Subsequent to my marriage I 
was appointed the Second Minister of the State 
with the sanction and approval of the then Po¬ 
litical Agent. 

But I had to give up my post after a short while, 
for in 1289 A. H., I was invested by the British 
Government with *the title of Nawab, according to 
the terms of the Agreement entered into by the 
State with the Paramount Power in 1855 A J)., 
and thus my connection with the administration 
accordingly came to an end. The entertainment 
or dismissal of an official, the trial of any case, civil 
criminal or revenue, and the introduction of law or 
system were never effected by me or under my 
orders. The state officials had their own powers. 
There was a State Council to decide intricate points 
in judicial and administrative matters, after a full 
and sifting inquiry. The officers were directly 
under the control of the Buler, all final orders were 
issued by her and the moonshees and officials were 
censured and punished by her. 

It is a pity that it did not strike my accuser that 
the Buler had the reputation of a good and wise 
administrator before my marriage with her, and it 
was upwards of eighteen years she held the reins of 
administration, unaided and single-handed. It is 
almost an historical fact that Her Highness, the 
Nawab Shah Jehan Begum eradicated many evils, 
under which the State was groaning just before her 



t 97 ) 

accession to the throne; ancl it was with talents of 
no ordinary order she grappled with the difficulties, 
put down corruption and misrule and introduced 
reforms and changes conducive to the public welfare. 
That a Lady Ruler, who could shew firm persever¬ 
ance, indomitable will, strong energy and high 
administrative skill, will surrender hood-winked to 
the mandates of her husband in administrative matters, 
is what should be accepted with the greatest caution. 
None but the enemies of the state can deny that 
Her Highness is alive to the heavy responsibility 
which Providence has placed on her and that she 
never shirked her responsibility by shifting it on 
others. 

The serious charge of maladministration owes 
its origin to the implacable hatred and the bitter 
jealousy of the sworn enemies of the State. The 
gradual prosperity of the State and the sudden 
change in my status and position were sights quite 
sickening to them. These intriguing persons formed 
a conspiracy to ruin the State at my expense. The 
Deori State under the late Quidsia Begum was 
groaning under oppression and Her Highness the 
Nawab Shah Johan Begum deemed it proper to 
bring, to the notice of the Agent to the Governor- 
General, the deplorable state of things in the Deori 
State. This led to an open rupture between the 
Ruler and her grand-mother but the enemies of the 
State succeeded in influencing the officers to believe 
that I was the cause of this rupture. To give a 
Color to their story, the .sworn enemies of the State 


( 98 ) 


accused me in tlieir petitions of wahabeeism and 
other serious offences. Shortly after this, General 
Daly was succeeded by Sir Lepel Griffin and during 
his incumbency the enemies were busy in carrying 
tales to him. I was pourtrayed in black colours, 
truths and facts were distorted, credulity gained the 
upper hand and thus ruin stared me in my face. 
Sir Lepel assumed an attitude of a persecutor, and 
made a deliberate attempt to make a mountain out 
of a mole-hill. The late minister Ahmed Reza was 
dismissed for his negligence and incompetence, but 
Sir Lepel took a different view; he held out threats 
to me and the Ruler saying that Ahmed Reza was 
treated in an unworthy manner at my instigation. 
Yasin Mahommed was found guilty long before the 
arrival of Sir Lepel but his case was raked up to 
accuse me of diabolical acts and I was threatened to 
pay compensation to Yasin. Dor reasons best known 
to Sir Lepel, he was determined to banish me from 
Bhopal, and he expressed his determination in the 
most clear and unequivocal language. All the oppro- 
hious and abusive epithets, exceeding the limits of 
propriety and decorum, were used publicly and 
privately to vilify me. 

It is passing strange that Sir Lepel could find 
out the rotten state of Bhopal, though his distin¬ 
guished predecessors found the reverse state. 
General Daly, Watson, Col. Bannerman at Indore, 
and Col. Osborne, Barstow Prideaux and Col. Banner- 
man at Sehore, were officers of no ordinary rank 
and intelligence. There was no complaint of malady 


( 99 ) 

ministration in tlieir days; on the contrary they 
eulogised the Bhopal Administration. |The state¬ 
ment of Sir Lepel is that the state of Bhopal is 
rotten to the core and virtually his distinguished 
predecessors failed to discharge the duties which 
a wise and liberal Government entrusted to them, 
I have had the pleasure of receiving many compli¬ 
mentary letters from distinguished European officers 
and eminent Englishmen who have invariably re¬ 
cognised my talents and learning. The Government 
of India conveyed thanks to me for the good and 
sound advice I gave to Her Highness to shew her 
firm devotion and unflinching loyalty to the Para¬ 
mount Power, 

The enemies of the state are known to be disloyal 
subjects conspicuous in their hostile attitude and 
seditious tone. Instead of shewing allegiance to 
their Buler they were determined to bring disgrace 
on the administration and found their way, after 
the arrival of Sir Lepel at Indore, to wreak their 
full vengeance on an innocent Buler who was kind 
enough to overlook their faults and misconduct in 
the beginning. 

I can not help regretting the mode adopted by 
Sir Lepel to humiliate me before the world for 
offences more imaginary than real. I knew the attitude 
of Sir Lepel and if I had been really guilty I could 
have adopted means to save my innocent wife, my 
kind benefactress—who made me happy by the 
' inestimable blessings lavished on me. To procrastinate 
akd to allow the enemies to put the Buler in an 


( 100 ) 

inextricable dilemma is what no sane man would 
do. It would be the height of ingratitude to take 
a bold front against Sir Lepel and to advise the 
Euler to plunge into the vortex of misery. 

I would sum up the charges brought against 
me by Sir Lepel Griffin and give a brief explanation 
in vindication of my conduct. The charges are 
thus summarised : 

(1) That I have committed treason in publishing 
the Khutabs ; 

(2) That I have committed oppression by 
means of the severe assessment on land, thereby 
impoverishing the people and depopulating the 
villages; 

(3) That I have committed oppression by 
holding the reins of administration ; the police and 
the courts have been converted into engines of 
oppression; 

(4) That I have bought some newspapers to 
Wreak my vengeance on the British Government which 
has deprived me of my title and salute and reduced 
me to a cipher in the State, and to oppose the 
reforms now introduced. 

With regard to the first charge, much has been 
said of the warning given to me in 1881, by the 
Government of India. It is alleged, that I incur¬ 
red the displeasure of Lord Bipon’s Government, 
for the publication of the Kutub of Moulovie 
Ismail of Delhi. It has never been my aim to 
call in question the order of the Government of 
India, and as a warning was given- to me with the 


( 101 ) 

best motives, I accepted it with a loyal heart. 
But it appears now to me that my loyalty is called 
in question, hence a serious charge, like this, should 
not remain unanswered. The explanation, given 
by me, with regard to the Khutub of Moulovie 
Ismail, will shew that it was not a treasonable act 
on my part. The Tavjanicm- Wahabea was pre¬ 
sented to Lord Bipon, and not a single word is 
incidentally mentioned of my conduct, in the letter 
acknowledging the receipt of the book, by his 
Private Secretary. I have shewn in my explanations, 
Part I., Sec. XL, Sec., III., Clause (C), Sec. IY. 
Clauses (B and C) and Sec. V., that the books, to 
which objections have been taken, are not what 
they are represented to be. I deny emphatically 
the charge of treason, and I am prepared to shew that 
I am right in my views. Some passages have been 
quoted to shew sedition, but they have been twisted 
and turned in a way which no scholar, in Arabic, 
Persian and IJrdoo languages, will do without violence 
to the language and sense. It is a matter of deep 
regret, that although the books, which I have pub¬ 
lished, are in support of the British Government, 
both in tone and spirit, yet they have been wholly 
misunderstood, and a charge has been brought against 
me. The books have been already published, and. I 
challenge any Arabic Scholar to come forward and 
to criticise it atomically and find out any passage 
against the Government, in which my views have 
been expressed. Ahmed Beza and his creatures had 
reasons to misconstrue the sentences, but why should 



< 102 ) 


not a distinguished Arabic scholar thoroughly loyal 
to the British Government, he asked to read the 
hooks and pass his opinions before me ? The 
matter is thus simplified, and the point in issue 
may he easily disposed of. 

Second Charge . 

It speaks of the impoverishment of the 
people , and the depopulation of villages , 
caused by the severe assessment . 

That the people have been impoverished is the 
cry of the prosecutor. The poverty of a country 
is no doubt deprecated by the liberal philanthro- 
phists. But it is a question which is open to 
solutions of various kinds. The facts and figures 
are occassionally quoted to prove the theory, but 
a true statesman does not necessarily accept the 
conclusion, even admitting the correctness of the 
figures. The poverty of India is an intricate pro¬ 
blem of the day, but has there been a consensus 
of opinion on the subject ? In Bhopal the taxes 
have been reduced or abolished, corn-duty has been 
repealed, trade has become brisk, railway has been 
opened, and every facility is afforded to the suitors 
wdthout increasing the stamp and the other duties, 
yet the country is verging on ruin as the land 
assessment is severe ! ! As a necessary consequence 
it is said that the villages have been depopulated. 
The census does not help to shew depopulation. 
The migration of a number of men to Bhilsa is 
pointed out as a proof of depopulation, and thjs 
number is said to be exceedingly large. When 


( 103 ) 

proofs were wanted to shew the accuracy of the 
number, the Agent to the Governor-General did 
not deem it proper to continue the controversy. 
But it is said that the land assessment is very 
severe, as the revenue has been increased. The 
farmers and tenants may certainly complain that 
there has been an increase of revenue. But have 
not time and circumstances changed ? The value 
of the commodities has increased, the waste lands 
have been converted into culturable ones, and 

trade has become brisk, why should there be no 
increase of revenue ? Look at the different adminis¬ 
trations under the British Government—the Central 
Provinces, the Deccan, the Punjab and the Oude, 
and take a comparative view of the past and pre¬ 
sent settlements. The same cry is heard every¬ 
where— the revenue has been increased. The Revenue 
laws are introduced, modified after a few years and 
occasionally repealed by the Indian legislature. 
But is that tantamount to an oppression on the 

part of the Government of India ? The poverty 

of the Deccan agriculturists is no secret, yet the 
Government has been trying to ameliorate the con¬ 
dition of the peasants. The settlement began 
in Bhopal long before the advent of Sir Lepel to 
the Central India. The people put in objections 
and they were heard in a regular way; the officials 
were censured and removed, yet it is said there 
has been an oppression on the part of the State and 
I have been identified with it, though I had no 
hand in the matter. How am I connected with 
13 


( 104 ) 

this settlement, which began in the days of the 
late Secandar Begum, under the supervision of the 
late Jamaludin, the most distinguished officer in 
the State, passes beyond my comprehension. At 
any rate, a charge of this kind in a general way 
depends, more or less, upon the Revenue Records 
which Sir Lepel never happened to see. I have 
reasons to believe that any officer, experienced in the 
Revenue matters, will not condemn the settlement* 

It has been alleged that the revenue was ener- 
mously increased from 17 lacs to 41 lacs. 

The fifteen years 5 Settlement was effected in 
the reign of the late Secandar Begum and The 
present Settlement began in the latter part of her 
reign.' The revenue fixed at the last Settlement 
was Rs. 17,74,791-13-5, in the course of the pre¬ 
sent Settlement there was an increase of 885 
.khalsa villages which once formed jaigeers but 
subsequently lapsed to the State. The annual in¬ 
come of these additional villages was Rs. 9,29,620-9 
and thus the total income of the khalsa villages 
would, but for the current Settlement, have been 
Rs. 27,04,412-6-6. This important fact was left 
entirely out of consideration by Sir Lepel Griffin. 

Another potent cause which tended to'increase the 
revenue is the excess of the land found on correct 
measurement. The present settlement was conducted 
on scientific basis. The State sent for trained sur¬ 
veyors to have the correct measurements of the lands. 
The result of the survey was that the cultivated 
or culturable lands were found in excess and the 


( 105 j 

revenue has been assessed on such lands. But 
this fact was entirely overlooked by Sir Lepel 
Griffn. 

The present revenue has been calculated at 
41 lacs. The rent roll prepared at the Settlement 
shewed a revenue of upwards of 41 lacks. But 
the figure shewn in the jummabundies does not 
represent correctly the total revenue. The assess¬ 
ment is in the course of being revised and already 
there has been a reduction of upwards 5 lacs of 
rupees. The increment of revenue instead of being 
24 lacs as represented by Sir Lepel Griffin is 
approximately 9 lakhs as shewn in the following 
table. 

Es. 

Present revenue ... „. # 35 j acs 

Eevenue at the last settlement Es. 17 lacs 

Of the resumed villages 9 „ 

— 26 
Difference ... 9 „ 

But this figure shewing the increment of revenue 
is subject to a further reduction, as the objec¬ 
tions to the assessment have not been all dis¬ 
posed of. 

It is a pity that Sir Lepel Griffin did not wait 
for the final disposal of the revenue suits, and 
assumed the nomimal figure on the rent-roll as 
correct to bring forward a charge against the State. 
Sir Lepel does not say that the revenue is exacted 
from the tenants but it may not be out of place to 
mention here that the Tesildars have been warned 


( 106 ) 

not to adopt any stringent measure for the realisa¬ 
tion of the revenue. 

The settlement effected in Bhopal is based upon 
the principle that the State is the absolute owner 
of the soil. In some parts of British India the 
proprietory right has been conferred on the mal- 
goozars or Zemindars and the Legislature has enacted 
laws to safe guard the rights of the tenantry. But 
in Bhopal the settlement is effected to promote 
the interest and welfare of the peasantry. 

The standard rate fixed in British India is higher 
than what is found here. There are six kinds of 
soil. The chaU soil is divided into three classes 
and the barani soil is divided into (1) Moran (2) Kabar 
( 3 ) Sayer. The standard rate varies according to 
the nature of the soil. The whole area of Bhopal 
consists of 47,47,838 bigahs, 11 biswas, by estimation, 
and out of this the State let out 16,98,070 bigahs 
11 bis and the revenue assessed on this area is less 
than 35 lacs. Thus the average rent rate is lower 
than what is found in British India. 

The charge brought forward by Sir Lepel Griffin 
may seem specious but when it is carefully examined 
with reference to the correct facts and figures, the 
hollow nature of it will become apparent. 

Regarding the third charge, it is to be seen 
that the existence of the Ruler of the State has 
been totally ignored and the whole administration 
is said to be in my hands ; this is virtually a charge 
against the capacity of the Ryder. The various 
reports, submitted to the Government before the 


( 107 ) 

appointment of Sir Lepel at the Indore Residency, 
are full of tales and fibs, and the encomiums, passed 
by the Viceroys, are, according to the opinion of Sir 
Lepal, undeserving, if not false ! But Sir Lepel’s 
words carry great weight. In the, dispute between 
the Euler and her daughter, three distinguished 
European officers condemned the conduct of the Sultan 
Jehan Begum, but Sir Lepel turned the table against 
the Euler. I believe that the accusation of Sir Lepel 
on this account against the reigning Begum, has 
been found to be correct in high quarters. In 
spite of the repeated assurance of the Euler, Sir 
Lepel did not change the idea, which struck deep 
in his heart, that the Begum was a non-entity. 
The acts of oppression, as specified by the Agent 
to the Governor-General, have been set forth in 
Part II. Sec. I., and separately dealt with. Even 
supposing for the sake of argument, that I had 
the sole and exclusive authority in the state mat¬ 
ters, the question is how far I have shared in 
the maladministration. The various reforms, intro¬ 
duced by the Euler, will shew that they are not 
engines of oppression. The Police and courts are 
prominently brought to notice to shew oppression. 
If the officials, in charge of the two departments, 
happen to do some unjust or unlawful acts, how 
can a third person, supposing that he is the 
superior officer, be charged, until and unless it is 
shewn that the subordinates have acted under the 
orders or instructions of the superior ? I have 
shewn elsewhere how the officials, who were found 


( 108 f 

guilty, had been dealt with by the State. I am 
afraid Sir Lepel wants to introduce the English 
laws and procedure in Bhopal, hut as the mode 
of administering justice in British India is expen¬ 
sive, and regarding which, I am informed, there 
has been a diversity of opinion, it is highly 
objectionable to introduce foreign laws and pro¬ 
cedure, not adapted to the requirements of the 
people, in Bhopal. The Police System has been 
working on for a long time most harmoniously, 
but as the spies and the enemies of the State can 
not attain their object on account of the vigilance 
of the Police, a false representation has been made 
by these designing men and the Police has been * 
taken to task. 

The generality of the officials are old hands and 
they are the best witnesses to say whether or not 
I had any influence over them. 

It has been stoutly maintained that the old 
officials were my proteges. The Pioneer wrote 
out some virulent articles against the Bhopal State 
and against me in particular and it was stated 
in one of its issues that one of the charges of 
Sir Lepel against me was that I had dismissed the 
old officers entertained by the late Secandar Begum. 
The two statements seem to be conflicting but one 
may see what value is to be attached to each of 
the statements. These statements like others are 
unfounded. The old officials were entertained by 
the late Secandar Begum, and among them I 
can count many who ingratiated themselves into 


( 109 ) 

the favors of those who are bent upon my ruin. 
Some of them were dismissed by Sir Lepel and 
some were allowed to retain their posts. If the 
officials were my proteges and if the Euler was 
led by her nose by me, the summary dismissal 
and banishment of some of these officials would 
have been strenously opposed by the Euler. 
Notwithstanding the peaceful attitude of the Euler, 
Sir Lepel harped on the sole idea which struck 
deep in his imagination and he chose in and out 
of season to implicate me in every thing which 
he saw in Bhopal. 

Fourth Charge :— 

It seems that there have been articles written 
in the newspapers against Sir Lepel and hence 
I have been charged to inspire the Editors. If the 
articles complained of, are false or defamatory, 

I understand, the laws, enforced in British India, 
are adequate enough to bring the offenders to 
justice. The safest and easiest course open to Sir 
Lepel was to move the machinery of the criminal 
law to sift the matter to the very bottom. A 
thorough inquiry in a court of justice will reveal 
the true state of affairs, and unless it is done there 
is no chance of removing the suspicions of Sir 
Lepel. Unfortunately I have not the means to 
court an inquiry on the subject and it is very diffi¬ 
cult for me to prove the negative. 

The reasons assigned are, (1) that I intend to 
wreak full vengeance on the Government for 
depriving me of my title and salute, (2) that I 


( no ) 

intend to oppose the new reforms. To direct a 
measure against the Government is what no sane 
man will dream of, even if the Government, which 
graciously raised my dignity hy title and salute, 
has been pleased to divest me of them on the accu¬ 
sations brought against me. I have already incur¬ 
red the displeasure of the Government of India, 
and the abject condition, to which I have been 
reduced, is no secret as it has been proclaimed 
out to the world. The newspapers want to 
make a capital out of this. Some have por¬ 
trayed me in the blackest colours and others 
have taken different views on the subject. I am 
fully aware' of the evil consequences which may 
befall me, if I have the hardihood to mix up with 
the editors in a matter of this kind. I am afraid 
my emphatic denial to the charge will not be 
sufficient to convince Sir Lepel of the fact, that 
I am not in any way connected with the news¬ 
papers, but I shall welcome the day when a 
criminal complaint is lodged against a single news¬ 
paper so that all the secrets will ooze out and 
I shall be cleared from the charge which has 
been brought against me on presumptions and 
probabilities. 

I have already stated that I was not connected 
with any department in the State nor was I ever 
invested with any powers by the Euler. The 
officials were directly under the control of the 
Euler. I never refused to render personally any 
help to the Euler whenever asked for, hut that 


( in ) 

help had nothing to do with the administrative 
work. An attempt was made to shew that- the 
officials were under my control hut it signally 
failed. Though for some time Sir Lepel was all 
in all in the Bhopal State, yet no official came 
forward to shew that I had any control or super¬ 
vision over any department. The old systems in 
vogue for a long time were set aside and new 
systems were introduced, hut did Sir Lepel meet 
with any opposition ? On every occasion a change 
was introduced in the State, Sir Lepel held out 
threats to. me, for he could not get rid of the idea 
of my existence in every thing connected with 
Bhopal an idea instilled in his mind hy the enemies 
of the State in spite of the facts which subsequently 
transpired and shewed a different state of things. 
It was on more than one occasion Sir Lepel 
Griffin expressed openly in public Durbar that he 
would not take any action against me if the Begum 
gladly accepted the proposals of abolishing the 
old systems and introducing new ones suggested 
by him. 

It is* said that I intend to oppose the reforms* 
which are introduced in Bhopal by the new 
minister. I am not surprised to find that my name 
is connected with this matter by Sir Lepel. I 
have already said that my accuser has made it 
a point to connect my name with every thing 
connected with the Bhopal affairs. I would ask 
him to say whether the reforms introduced by 
him, the dismissal and incarceration of the officials 
13 


( 112 ) 


under his instructions and the abolition of the 
old systems under his orders, have met with any 
opposition. The introduction of the new systems 
and the silence of the Euler will speak volumes 
against the charge; but alas ! the mighty pen, 
which decided the fate of a staunch and faithful- 
ally of the Paramount Power, has been wielded 
against me and my refutation is but a crying in 
the wilderness. 

If the Paramount Power takes into considera¬ 
tion my antecedents and good deeds, and affords 
ipe an opportunity to meet the charges, it will 
be the highest favor which, under the circum¬ 
stances, I may crave of the British Government, 
and until and unless it is done, I do not find 
the way to vindicate my conduct and regain the 
favors which were kindly lavished on me before 
the advent of Sir Lepel Griffin. 


S. H. 




APPENDIX (A.) 

The Futwas (opinions) of Alims (the Mahommedan 
learned doctors) of India, on the compilation of the 
following books . 

1. The Hidayt-us-Sail. 

2. The Turjama Wahabea. 

3. The Iktrab-tjs-Saya. 

The above books are composed or compiled by the Nawob 
Shaheb of Bhopal. The Alims (learned men) in India are asked 
to refer to the above books, those who have not read them will 
be good enough to peruse them. The scholars will be good 
enough to give their impartial opinions on the above books with¬ 
out fear or favor. The following questions with my replies are 
sent to the learned men in different places in India who will be 
good enough to state their views. 

Question . Y' hether the books are seditious or are there any pas¬ 
sages hostile to the Government or whether the enemies of 
the State misinterpreted them to the Government officers. 
Opinion .—I have carefully read the books but have not come 
across any passage inciting Jehad against the Government. 
Not to speak of the Jehad against the Governmet, there is 
not a stirring passage in favor of Jehad. 

I. The first book, Hidayut-us-Sail , is a collection of maxims. 
There are eight interrogatories which are quite distinct from 
Jehad but which have been wrongly construed to mean an incite¬ 
ment of Jehad. It is a translation of a small Arabic Treatise 
named Saef Tabar, composed by Syed Mahommed, son of Abdool 
Barry of Yemen. This treatise has been translated by the Nawob 
with other treatises but it contains no maxim on Jehad. The 
author was considered to be the most learned man in his days 
and it was sixty or seventy years ago the residents of Yemen 
( 1 ) 


( 2 } 


went to Mm and put the interrogatories regarding the French 
who were residing qt Yemen. The original treatise thus had 
nothing to do with the British Government and the Yawoh has 
added nothing to the translation in support of the views of the 
Author. The name of the author is referred to and the transla¬ 
tion was made twelve or thirteen years ago, * To me it appears 
that the translator is not open to censure, otherwise all editors 
and proprietors of the newspapers should be held responsible for 
publishing and quoting the letters on the false Mehdi, Russia &c 7 
the sworn enemies of the Government. If they are not taken 
to task, why should the Nawob be called upon to submit an ex¬ 
planation ? « 

II. The second book, Turjama Wahabea is a history of the 
Wahabees taken from the works of the Christian. Historians. It 
exonerates the Indian Mussulmans of the charge of Waha- 
beeism. In the conclusion of the book, the , author has com 
demned every kind of sedition and disturbance quoting authori¬ 
ties from the Hadis. The hook shews that the Indian Mussulmans 
are not Wahabees. The book is decidedly in favor of the British 
Government. 

III. The third book, Iktrab-us-Saya proves clearly and 
forcibly that the Mehdi of Soudan is a false pretender. The 
object of the book is to keep the illiterate Mahommedans on 
their guard and to avoid any imposition or inducement by the 
false claimants. The book speaks of twenty false Mehdis who 
preceded the Soudan-man hut their authority was not accepted 
by the people. The book in question materially helps the cause 
of the Government ; those who allege otherwise are either men 
who have a grudge against the Nawob, or illiterate persons who do 
not understand the purport of the hook. I am prepared to shew 
from the book itself that tire charge is a false one ; and I would 
refer to the English translation of the Isat-us-Sunnah and the 
UrdoQ book by the late Moulovie Abdool Barry on the Bhopal 
affairs ; these deal with the charges brought against each Khutab , 
and passages are quoted therein in support of the views of those 


( 3 ) 

HfcHtW The passages speak clearly of the fact that the-object of- 
the book is to support the cause of the Government but it seeing 
that the Government officers have accepted the false representa- # 
tion and the wrong interpretation of the enemies without ’ 
understanding the true meaning and purport of the passages, 

I am prepared to vouch the correctness of my statement and 
to prove before the officers that the book in question is decidedly 
in favor of the Government. I can shew further that the 
charges are based on enmity or selfish motive,. ISTone can 
honestly declare that the book purports to incite the people 
against the. Government. I am of opinion that it tends to 
preserve the harmony between the Eulers and the ruled. 

I myself have no connection with the JSTawob' but I have 
read his works. The Mawculul Owaid, Rawzatd Khasib and others 
refute the doctrines of the Wahabees and* prove in the present 
age the non-existence of the requirements and conditions in 
every country for the declaration of the Jehad. I can quote the 
pages and passages in support of my views.. The author is a 
sincere welljwisher of the Government and is known for his 
loyalty on vai ious occasionsi he who brings a charge against 
such a man jis himself guilty and harbours the sinister idea of 
breaking the peace nf the land. 

God is just and, knows good and evil ! 

(Sd.) Mahommed Saved of Beneras 

Editor of the “ JVusroot SoonnaK. ” : 

: In response to the invitation of the Editor of the Nusrodt 
Soonnah th^ following persons gave their opinions in favdr of 
the books add their names are given in the accompanying lists. 
The opinions of some of the distinguished gentlemen are 
separately gjiven. 

i . • I r , ■ " , ; - y 

i ’ . * 

i - 

I , d . : , ...... . : 



( 4 ) 


Serial 

dumber. 

Names of persons. 

Residence. 


1 

Ahmed, son of Monlovie 

Musa 

Ahmedpur, 

Bhawalpur 


2 

Abdool Majid Shah 

Ho 


3 

Mahommed Abdool Aziz 

Do 


4 

Mahommed Ibrahim 

Arrah 


5 

Wasiat Aly 

Do 

Teacher 

6 

Abdool Rahaman 

Do 


7 

Enayet Ullah 

Do 


8 

Abdool Wadood 

Do 


9 

Mahommed Ismail 

Do 


10 

Mahommed Abdoolla 

Banat 

Muzaffernagar 


11 

Abdool Huq 

Do 


12 

Abdool Kurrim 

Bangalore 


13 

Syed Mahommed Isaq 

Do 


14 

Mahommed Sheriff 

Do 

Manager of 
Akbar 
Mersom 

15 

Mahommed Abdoolla 

Bombay 


16 

Mahommed Hussein 

Do 


17 

Hafiz Nizamudin 

Do 


18 

Abdad Rahaman 

Do 


19 

Abdullah Khan 

Do 

Store- 

Suptdt. 

20 

Abdol Razak 

Do 

21 

Sheik Abdool Kurrim 

Do 


22 

Mahommed Abdool Rahim 

Do 

Captain 

23 

Gul Mahommed 

Do 

24 

Rahammt-ullah Khan 

Do 


25 

Mahommed Khoojah 

Do 


26 

Hossein Aly 

Do 

Captain 

27 

Hisamudin Khan 

Do 

28 

Mowla Bux 

Do 


29 

Mahommed Hossein Khan 

Do 


30 

Hossein Bin Jan Mahommed 

Do 


31 

Himmat Khan 

Do 


32 

Haji Hossein Aly 

Do 


33 

Abdool Rasid 

Do 


34 

Mahommed Yakub Khan 

Do 


35 

Kureem Buksh 

Do 


36 

Ahmedullah Khan 

Do 

• 









Serial 

s’umbe 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

37 


( 5 ) 


Names of persons. 


Residence. 


Izzut Aly 

Mahommed Ibrahim 
Enayet Ullah 
Rahamut Ullah Bin 

Ahmed Khan 
Mahommed Omar 
Mahommed Zahirudin 
Abdool Kureein 
Muzhur Hossein 
Mahommed Ysuf 
Ahmed Ullah 
Abdoollah 
Jan Mahommed 
Mahommed Asgar 
Ramzan 

Sheik Abdool Rahaman 

Abdoollah 

Abbas 

Mahommed Hossein 
Abdool Kureem 
Mahommed Abdool Raham 
Abdool Quabir 
Mahommed Ibrahim 
Mahommed Selarudin 
Mahommed Ismail 
Mahommed Ibrahim 
Mir Ahmed 
Ali Mahommed 
Gholam Russool 
Wali Mahommed 
Abdool Rahim , 

Mahommed Ynoos 

Sheik Nusroolah 

Asanull-Gunny 

Abdool Rouf 

Jan Mahommed Khan 

Abdool Quaim 

Syed Mahommed Nazir 

Hossein 

Syed Mahommed Abdool 
Salem 


Bombay 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Benares 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Jhung 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Jabalpor 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Delhi 

Do 


Teacher 

Do 

Do 











( 6 ) 


Serial 

Number. 

Names of persons. 

Residence. 


75 

Aboo Mahommed Abdool 




Huq 

Delhi 


76 

Abdool Rouf 

Do 


77 

Mahommed Ysuf 

Do 


7g 

Abool Burkad 

Do 


79 

Mahommed Abdool Majid 

Do 


80 

Mahommed Isaq 

Do 


81 

Abdool Majid Aboo 1 




Mahommed Said J 

Seoni (Chapara) 


82 

Abool Barkat 

Do 


83 

Syed Ahmed Hossein 

Ghazipur 

Pleader. 

84 

Mahommed Abdoola 

Do 

Teacher. 




(Arabic . 

85 

Mahommed Abdool Rahamen 

Do 

Do ) 

86 

Mahommed Abdool Guffur 

Do 


87 

Ulf'ut Hossein 

Do 


88 

Mahomed Zakria 

Do 


89 

Mahommed Abdoolah 

Do 


90 

Abdool Kureem 

Kurnal 


91 

Mahmud 

Mooltan 


92 

Abdool Hakim 

Do 


93 

Abddol Tuwab 

Do 


94 

Burkkoordar 

Do 


95 

Mahakmoodim 

Do 


96 

Abdool Guffar 

Do 


97 

Abdool Manan 

Do 


98 

Fakir-Ullah 

Do 

Teacher 

99 

Kazi 1 Illahi Buksh 

Do 


100 

Rahim Bux 

Do 


101 

Noor: Mahommed 

Mooltan 


102 

Mahommed Shah 

Do 


103 

Mahommed Hisamudin 

Mhow, Azimgurh 


104 

Sheikh Noor Mahommed 

Do 


105 

Mahommed Sadullah 

Do 


106 

Mahommed Khalil Rahaman 

Do 


107 

MahOmmed Aly 

Do 


108 

Mahommed Abdool Quadir 

Do 


109 

Syed: Mahommed Nizumudin 




Nukbee 

Malapur 


110 

Kazi Mahommed Abdool 




Rahim 

Do 











( 3 ) 


Serial 

Kumber 


Karnes of persons. 

Residence. 


111 

112 

Mahommed Shumsudin Khar 
Syed Mahommed Fukrudin 
Nukbee 

i Malapur 

Do 


113 

Abdool Quadir 

Do 


114 

Mahommed Hossein 

Do 


115 

Aboo Mahommed Salimullah 

Mirzapur 


116 

Mahommed Aly 

Do 


117 

Hoor Mahommed 

Do 


118 

Pana 

Ullah 

Do 


119 

Mahommed Isa 

Do 


120 

Mahommed.Abdool Luteef 

: Do 


121 

Mahommed Rufi nllah 

Do 


122 

Humidullah 

Meerat 

Teacher 

123 

Abdool Barry 

Do 


124 

Hafiz Mahommed Hpssein 

Do 


125 

Abdool Alim 

Do 


126 

Abdpol Samad 

Do 


127 

Musfapha 

Do 


128 . 

Secandar Shah 

Do 


129 

Abdool Rahaman 

Do 


130 

J elaludin 

Do 


131 

Hafiz Mahommed Shah 

Kasirabad 

Teacher 

132 

Ahmed Hossein 

Do 

133 

Mahommed Habibullah 

Do 

( 

Soobadar 

134 

Mahommed Yakub 

Kagpur -< 

Major Govt 
Pensioner 

135 


Do 

Do 

Do 

136 

Mahommed Abdool ^ziz 

^ Do 

Teacher 

137 

Abdool Kureem 

Do 

138 

Syed Abdool Rahaman 

Do 


139 

Sheik Omar 

Do 


140 

Sheik Ibrahim 

Do 


141 

Mahommed Osman Khan 

Do 

Propictor 
of a news¬ 

142 

Abdool Majid 

Do 

paper 

143 

Mahommed Jehangir Khan 

Do 

] 

Editor of 
ECyan Kag- 

144 

Jaffir Khan 

Do 

pur 

Teacher 













( 8 ) 


Serial 

Kumber. 

Names of persons. 

Residence. 


145 

Moulovie Abdool Rahim Khan 

Nagpur 


146 

Abdool Rahim 

Do 

Forest De¬ 
partment 

147 

Dilawor Khan 

Do 

148 

Mahommed Ibrahim 

Do 


149 

Mahommed Ismail 

Do 


150 

Abdool Munnah 

Wazirabad 


151 

Mahommed Abdool Jubbar 

Omerpor 


152 

Sheik Hossein 

Allahpur 


153 

Abdool Rahim 

Do 


154 

Mahommed Jamal 

Do 

Soobadar 

Major. 

155 

Gholam Dustgir 

Do 

Do 

156 

Syed Shahabudin 

Sheik Salar 

Do 


157 

Do 


158 

Hakim Abdool Quadir 

Do 


159 

Omor Khan 

Do 


160 

Mahommed Yakub 

Do 


161 

Mahommed Ismail 

Do 


162 

Syed Mahi-u-din 

Do 

Pensioner 

163 

Mahommed Khan 

Do 


164 

Mahommed Ghous 

Do 


165 

Mahommed Hossein 

Do 


166 

Syed Ibrahim 

Do 


167 

Syed Sultan 

Do 


168 

Mahommed Kasim 

Do 


169 

Abdool Rahaman 

Do 


170 

171 

Mahommed Yakub 

Sheik Mahiudin 

Do 



0 









( « ) 

No. I. 


We confidently know that the Nawob of Bhopal, especially 
the followers of Hadis and generally the Ahl Hadis consider it 
a sm to declare Jehad against the Government in the absence of 
tne requirements. H,s works proclaim loudly that the result of 
the Jehad is not favorable in this and future world The 
Htdayut-us-Sail and the Turjama WaKalea do not incite the 
people to Jehad according to the requirements of the Shura. 
loose who say otherwise are either liars or enemies. The 
Mawadul Obetd and the Rowz-i-Khasib forbid strictly Jehad 
rebellion and disturbance. 


(Sd.) 1. Ahmed Bin. 

(Sd). 2. Fakir Abdool Majid Shah. 
(Sd). 3 . Mohammed Abdool Aziz. 


No. II. 

- I have seen the Turjama Wahabea, Hidayut-us-Sail, Iftral- 
us-Saya from the beginning to the end but could not find therein 

any maxim against the Sunnat and Jammat sects. The opinion 

of the Nawob, on Jehad, is not unlike that of the Theolocues 
who preceded him. There is nothing of Jehad agafast the 
British Government, but on the other hand he has assigned 
many reasons for the non-existence of the requirements of Jehad 
in the present days in his own works. The Mehdi of Soudan is 
represented to be a rebel and his claims have been shewn to be 
false. I wonder at the ideas and thoughts of those who have 
misrepresented to the officers ; these men have no faith in futurity 
and unnecessarily trouble others. The British Government is 
not like its predecessors who used to put men in trouble, on the 
false informations supplied to them ; it is famous for its admini¬ 
stration of justice even to hair splitting. These unbelievers who 
made false representations would, sooner or later, be found out 
by the British Government after due investigation (an investi- 
( 2 ) 


( 10 ) 

gation should be made) ; these liars and tale-carriefs should be 
called upon to prove their allegations. 

In other points I concur with the Benaras gentleman. 

(Sd). Syed Mahommed. 

Fukirudin Nuquey. 

No. III. 

I am not a servant of the Nawoh nor have I any connection 
with the Bhopal State. My statement herein-after given is, to 
the best of my belief, just and fair. 

Within the last twenty five years I have read the smaller 
and larger works of the Nawob, in the Urdoo, Persian and 
Arabic languages, and especially the Hidayat-us-Saya , the Iftrab - 
u-Saya , the Turjama- Wahabea and the Hujjul-Karama. I 
read the latter works most scrutinisingly, to find out a passage 
directed against the British Government. I have come to a 
conclusion after critical examination of the books, there is 
nothing against the Government hut on the other hand the object 
of the compiler is to remove at once all the disaffected thoughts 
and ideas of the subjects and to prevail upon them to believe 
sincerely that it is their bounden religious duty to avoid the 
disturbance against the Government. The compilations have 
brought on this result in the Carnatic, and thousands of men 
cry aloud sincerely that it is a serious evil to be hostile to, 
or rebel against the Government and it is not warranted by the 
faith of Islam. There is not a sentence or passage in the Khutabs, 
in question, which suggests to any man of common sense that it 
is against the Government. May God save from the evils. This 
is a false charge against the Nawob. Under the mandates of 
my religion I concur with the views of the Benaras gentleman 
and add that they are just and correct. 

(Sd.) Syed Mahommed. 

Nizamudin Nukbee. 

Malapur . 

Carnatic. - 


( 11 ) 

No. IV. 

As far as I have seen the writings of the Nawob, there is no 
passage against Islam or the Government ; but the enemies have 
invented the story and taken ns aback. They have misrepre- 
presented to the officers. * * * * * If carefully read it 

will appear how cleverly the enemies have managed. It is just 
like picking up an isolated sentence from the Koran “ Yah 
aishul luzi a munnla takroo bus Salata ” (Ye who accepted faith 
approach not near the prayer). The words which follow the 
above sentence are “ when ye are drunk.” 

(ScL) Abdoola Khan. 

Bombay . 

y. 

The Government of India is great ; when I consider of the 
justice of the Government, it seems that the charges are un¬ 
founded and it is needless for one to clear himself. The treatises 
in question are as clear as broad noonday and there is nothing of 
Jehad mentioned therein. Is any proof wanted ? Let the Go¬ 
vernment read and examine the books and discriminate right 
from wrong and find out the nature and character of the persons 
who have brought the charges. 

(Sd.) Ahmedullah. 

No. VI. . 

I have carefully read the books in question. I can confident¬ 
ly state without fear or favor that there is no passage in the book 
which is adverse to the Goverment, directly or indirectly, or 
which incites the subjects against the Government, but on the 
other hand it is fair and just to say that the Kawob has 
checked the Mussalmans on religious grounds from sedi¬ 
tion and mutiny and has frightened the rebels. The Nawob 
has shewn that the mutiny in 1857 was a mere disturbance 
caused not by Jehad, and that the Mehdi of Soudan is a false 
pretender strongly condemning his war. This is not my 


( 12 ) 


invention. Let any one read the Koran and the Hadis and 
compare them with the treatises of the Nawob and test the 
correctness of my views. I shall be responsible if my view is 
not correct. 

(Sd.) Mahomed Yanis 

Jubbalpore. 

VII. 

I concur with the Editor of the Nursool-Soonah. It is true that 
the Nawob has not expressed his own views in the books bnt has 
compiled the authoritative khutabs. It is wrong and unjust to say 
that the books are adverse to the Government, but on the other 
hand they are in support of the cause of the Government vide 
pages, 7, 47, 55 of the Iktrab-us-Saya which shew that there is 
no necessity of Jehad in India under the present regime, as each 
administration and the Empress of India govern the land under 
impartial laws in protection of our creed. The religious tolera¬ 
tion and freedom are allowed to the subjects under enactments, 
hence it is prohibited to declare Jehad against the present Eulers. 
At pp. 130 to 134, India has been put under the category of 
Darul Islam in the Hidayut-us-Saya . In short all the works of 
the Nawob which I have read are free from any sedition and that 
a false charge has been brought against him. 

(Sd.) Syed Ahmed ITossein 

Pleader Ghazipur . 


No. VIII. 

I have read the three books referred to in the questions. I 
have not come across any passage declaring Jehad or creating 
disturbance against the Government ; but on the other hand 
the books seem to be against such views. The author totally 
denies the existence of the requirements of the Jehad and hence 
he has strongly condemned it, on the score of its being a cause 
of disturbance and fight. This I can clearly shew from the 


( 13 ) 

books. Any just man, who has the sense to understand the 
books, will not think that the books are meant against the Go¬ 
vernment. To me it seems that those who have misrepresented 
to the Government are either illiterate or inimical to the Go¬ 
vernment, the subjects and the author with the object of destroy¬ 
ing the peace of the land and inflicting troubles on the Govern¬ 
ment officers and the subjects. 

(Sd.) Mah OMMED ABDOOLA 

Head Teacher ( Arabic ) 

Ghazipur . 

No. IX. 

The books compilled by the Nawob do not contain any 
passage against the British Government but on the other hand 
the writings encourage loyalty, devotion and faithfulness to the 
Government. Let any one read the books and see whether I 
am correct. 

(Sd.) Mahommed Obedullah. 

(Seal) 

Banut, District Miizujj 1 orhagar. 

No. X. 

I think confidently that the books of the Nawob Shaheb do 
not contain any passage against the British Government nor the 
Nawob has been or will be disloyal to the Government. The 
Nawob has compiled the maxims of the Saunat without any fear 
or favor, for which the followers of Islam other than Ahl Hadis 
have brought false charges. If justly considered the Nawob will 
stand free of the charges and the enmity of the false accusers 
will be proved. 


(Sd.) Abdool Kurrim. 


are 


( 14 ) 

No. XI. 

I have read the theological works of the Nawob which 
an exposition of the Hadis (the creed of the Sunnat) and 
form a refutation * of the counter creeds. Hence the enemies 
have taken umbrage and without carefully understanding the 
passages have picked up a few sentences to shew the hostile atti¬ 
tude of the Nawob towards the British Government. If the 
whole passage had been taken into consideration they could not 
have construed the meaning as they have done. The three hooks 
do not contain any passage against the British Government hut 
on the other hand there are passages clearly forbidding Jehad 
ao-ainst the Goverment and encouraging loyalty. 

o 

(Sd.) Syed Mahommed Isa, 

Banat , Muzuffernagar . 


No. XII. 

I have read the works of the Nawob and especially the three 
hooks. There is not a single word which speaks against the Go¬ 
vernment directly or indirectly. They have nothing to do with 
the British Government ; if they have, it is to this extent that 
the cause of the Government is supported on religious grounds. 
The object of the Nawob is to spread the religion of the Sunnats. 
Those who think that the Khutahs are hostile to the Government 
are murderers of truth and hence it clearly appears that they are 
the enemies of the Nawob. If I express my opinion fully I 
must concur with the views of Moulovie Mahammed Syed, the 
elitor of the Narsul-o-Soonna. Briefly speaking I must concur 
with his opinion. 

(Sd.) Mahommed Sheeeef 

JPropritor of AJcka Mausoory . 


APPENDIX (B). 

An “Extract from the supplememnt to the “ ad¬ 
vocate of India” ( a Bombay Journal) in support of 
my explanation to the charges brought by Sir Lepel 
Griffin regarding the hooks. 


u An Extract ” 

We now intend to refer to the charges 
which have been brought against the Nabob, and which, in the 
opinion of his -opponents, constitute a sufficient justification for 
a severe form of punishment. 


These charges are :— 

( 1 ).— * * * 


* 


(2).—That he (the Nabob) sent money to the Mehdi through 
one Din Mohamed. 


(3)—That he wrote the Majmua-i-Khutab, the Hidayat-us- 
Sail, the Tarjaman Wahabiya, the Iqtrab-us-Sait, and 
other works against the British Government* in order 
to incite the people to wage Jihad or religious war 
against Government. 

We now proceed to refute the several 
charges in the order in which we have stated them. 

( 1 )— * * * * 

(2) Similarly, the statement about the Nabob Consort send¬ 
ing money to the Mehdi through one Din Mahammad is 
entirely imaginary. In order to give it a coloring of truth, the 
Mashir-i-Qaisar t state that “if Din Mahommad had not 
been cleverly made to escape to Cabul he would have been 


* Vide Alim-ul-Akhbar of Calcutta 1st March, 1886. 
f Vide Mashir-i-Qaisar, 4th February, 1?86. 



( 16 ) 


been assuredly punished.” We are glad to be able to inform 
our contemporary that the Din Muhammad to whom he refers 
was arrested at Lahore a few days ago and that he is taking his 
trial. Let our contemporary therefore come forward on the 
present occasion, and prove the complicity of the Nabob Consort 
in the case under notice, and get him adequately punished. We 
beg to assure the Mashir that we shall be glad to assist him in 
order to see the enemies of our benign Government adequately 
punished. The statement * made by Din Muhammad in court 
shows that so far from being a confidential agent, he is a deadly 
enemy of the Nabob. Self-constituted councillors like our con¬ 
temporary are of course at liberty to extort I any confession they 
like out of him prejudicial to the Nabob, but they must, always 
remember that the t antecedents of Din Muhammad and his 

* We have learnt on good authority that Din Mohamed made a statement in 
the Court of the Judicial Assistant, Lahore, to the effect that he had been sent to 
Lahore by Sir Lepel Griffin, in order to collect some evidence against the Nawab. 
Sir Lepel Griffin, who was telegraphed to, has not confirmed this statement, but it 
is clear from Din Mohamed’s confession that he is an enemy of the Nabob and 
not his confidential agent. 

f Din Mohamed is a resident of Bhopal. Originally a Hindu of the Ivalal 
caste, he became a Mohamedan and entered the service of the late Qudsiya Begum, 
whose hostility to the Nabob consort and the Begum has been admitted even by 
our contemporaries. He has been in the habit of extorting money by threatening 
people to report them to the authorities and representing himself as a spy. He 
had also obtained money on other pretences as is clear from an advertisement in 
the Nusratus-sun-nat warning people against his machinations and stating that he 
left Benares after obtaining money on false pretences. On one occasion he tried 
to extort money out of the Nabob by writing a petition in which he asked the latter 
to pay him a thousand rupees, else he would write to Sir Lepel Griffin that he had 
been sent by the Nawab with a thousand rupees to the Mehdhi and that he had de¬ 
clined to pay the other thousand rupees which he had promised. The Nabab sent 
this petition to the Criminal Court which punished him after duly inquiring into 
the case. He was also punished on a previous occasion for a similar offence. This 
can be verified from the misals of the Bhopal Court. He confessed that he had 
threatened the Nabob because he did not provide for him after the death of Qudsi¬ 
ya Begum. These facts show clearly enough that he is an open enemy of the 
Nabob and that consequently any statement he might invent for his own safety or 
at the instance of others cannot be relied on if the misals of the Bhopal Courts are v 
to be trusted. « 



( 17 ) 

cases in the courts of Bhopal render his evidence against the 
Nawob legally worthless. Of course, if it is politically expedient 
to receive his evidence, then it is a different thing altogether. 

(3).—Tlie third charge which our Mahommedan brethern 
have preferred against the Nabob is only partially true but most¬ 
ly unfjundel. That the works of the Nawob contain some 
passages to which exception might be taken, is true enough, but 
to credit him with being the author of those passages and to 
infer from them that he is an enemy of the British Government 
is monstrous. These passages have been quoted in the Nawob’s 
works from other authors. Indeed, the Nawob’s works contain 
passages diametrically opposed to those to which exception has 
been taken. 

Secondly, the meaning of most of the passages has been pur¬ 
posely distorted to show the Nabob as being disloyal to the 
British Goverment, although they really do not at all show that 
the Nawob is in any way hostile to the Government. 

Thirdly, the authorship of certain passages has been wrongly 
ascribed to the Nawob—passages which are conspicuous by their 
absence in Ins writing. 

We now proceed to refute the several misrepresentations 
of which the Nawab Consort has been made the victim by his 
opponents, and trust that our benign Government and its officials, 
who may have been misled by such misrepresentations, will 
carefully consider what we have to say on the subject. 

The first work in which Siddiq Hassan Khan is charged with 
attempting to incite people to wage war against Government 
is the Dewan Khutab or Moizat-i-Hasna. The opponents of the 
Nawab have tried to impress on the Government and some of the 
officials that in the work in question the Nawab has attempted to 
excite the people to Jehad, and has purposely compiled it in the 
Arabic language and printed it in Egypt so as to create a feeling 
of hostility against the Government in Arabia and Egypt. It is 
true that this work contains a Khutba on the question of Jehad • 
but it is wrong to say that the Kawab is the author of that Khutba 
0 ) 


( 13 ) 


or that it is intended to incite people to Jehad, or that he wrote it 
in the Arabic language and printed it in Egypt in order to excite 
the Arabs and Egyptians against the Government. 

The fact is that the several Khutbas contained in the book are 
not written by one and the same author, but by various authors ; 
and the one dealing with Jehad is from the pen of Moulovi Moham¬ 
mad Ismail, the martyr, who wrote it when he was engaged in a 
religious war against the Sikhs, on account of the latter interfering 
with the Mahammedans in the performance of their religious 
duties. He did not wage a religious war against the British, nor 
did he excite people against them in the Khutba in question. In¬ 
deed, he considered it unlawful to wage war against them, and this 
he declared openly in Calcutta (vide Syad Ahmad Khan’s reply to 
Hr. Hunter, which he quoted at page 7 of the last number of the 
Ishat-us-Sunah). 

The Nawab, according to an ancient custom, collected, the 
Khutbas of the Ulema, including that of Moulovi Ismail on Jehad, 
and caused the collection to be printed in India. As the question 
of Jehad (which is enjoined under certain circumstances which do 
not exist) is referred to in almost all Mahammedan books on Theo¬ 
logy and the traditions of the Prophet, and as in the Khutba under 
notice the people are not called upon to wage Jehad against the 
Government, he very rightly considered that the publication of 
this Khutba,* or the book containing it, would do no harm to 
the British Government. 

But the mere mention of the word Jehad was considered suffi¬ 
cient by the opponents of the Hawab, who at once succeeded in 
rousing the suspicions of certain officials against him. Accord¬ 
ingly, on the 21st March 1881, Colonel Bannermann, Political 
Agent, Saihoor (Bhopal territory), raised certain objections 
against the work in question, whereupon the Nawab destroyed 
all the copies he could lay his hands upon in the presence of the 
Political Agent. When this work was republished in Egypt, the 


* We have a copy of the first edition containing the Khutba on Jehad, and we 
shall be glad to show it to anybody who may be inclined to verify our statement.. 



( 19 ) 

Khutba of Moulovi Mohammad Ismail was excluded. We have 
a copy of the edition published in Egypt with us, and shall be 
glad to show it to any one who may desire to verify our state- 
ment. 

this shows that the Nawab, so far from attempting to excite 
people to wage Jehad against the British, is loyal to the British 
Government. Indeed, if the object of the Nawab had been to 
excite people against the Government, he should have published 
this work or the Khutba on Jehad in the Vernacular and not in 
the Arabic language, which not one out of a hundred Indian 
Mahammedans understand. On the other hand, if he had meant 
to create ill-feeling against them in Egypt and Arabia he should 
not have excluded the Khutba on Jehad. The publication in 
Arabic in India, and the omission of the Khutba on Jehad in the 
Egyptian edition, prove conclusively that he did not mean to 
excite the people to Jehad. 

The remarks we have made above will, we trust, serve to 
convince our readers that the Nawab Consort cannot be charged 
with attempting to excite people to Jehad on account of the 
publication of the Dewan-i-Khutab. 

The second work which the Nawab is represented as having 
published with the same object, viz., to excite the people to 
Jehad, is the Hidayat-us-Sail. The Nawab’s opponents have 
tried to impress on the Government that on pages 88 to 91 
of this work the Nawab calls upon the Arabs either to expel 
the English from Arabia, or to massacre them, or convert 
them to Islam ; and that at pages 94 to 104 the Nawab, in 
replying to certain questions, proves that India is “ a Dar-ul- 
Harb, or place of war, that it is the duty of the Mahammedans 
to rescue by the sword from the hands of infidels all cities 
occupied by the latter and that it is unlawful (kufr) for 
the Muhammadans to reside in the cities of infidels, or to 
serve them, or cultivate their friendship, or to call their laws 
just, and so on. It is no doubt true that the Hidayat-us-Sail 
d(?es contain such passages ; but it is not true that the Nawab 


( 20 ) 


is their author, or that his object in publishing them was to 
create ill-feeling or hostility against the English. The passages 
in question are written by others, the Bawab having simply 
quoted them. 

The first passage which is quoted at pages 88 to 91 is a 
translation of Hassan-bin-Jalal of Yemen’s treatise called the 
Banian, as stated on page 91, line 10, of the Hidayat-us-SaiL 
The remaining passages which appear on pages 94 to 104 are 
literal translations of a treatise called Saif Tabbar written by 
Sayed Abdul Barri of Yemen. Although no reference has been 
made to this treatise in the Hidayat-us-Sail, but in another 
work, the Ibrat, which was published by the Nawab three years 
later, in A. H. 1294, the text of the treatise and its name are 
given. We have both of these treatises (Banian and Saif 
Tabbar) at our disposal, and we can show them to any one who 
cares to see them. The fact of the Nawab translating and quot¬ 
ing from these treatises in the Hidayat-us-Sail without express¬ 
ing any opinion, favourable or otherwise, is just like the 
reproducing (by the newspaper critics of the Nawab) of the 
Mehdi’s proclamations or the hostile actions of Bussia against 
the Government without any comment. Such an act cannot 
be regarded in the light of an attempt at inciting the people 
to rebellion; so far as our own experience goes, we can 
conscientiously assert that the object of the Nawab in repro¬ 
ducing such passages was to show his profound learning and 
research, and not for the purpose of showing his friendship 
or hostility to the British Government * * * * It is not true 
that he inserted them for the purposes of exciting the people to 
rebellion. In support of this assertion we will adduce an argu¬ 
ment the soundness of which will be admitted by all unpreju¬ 
diced minds, and that is that in the Hidayat-us-Sail and 
subsequent works the Nawab also inserted the following masails 
(maxims), which are diametrically opposed to those to which 
exception has been taken. 

(1). That the cities of India are Dar-ul-Islam (places of 


( 21 ) 


safety) and not Dar-ul-Harb (places of war) (thus contradicting all 
the passages quoted on pages 94 to 104 of the Hidayat-us-Sail). 

(2) . That the chiefs and people of India having entered into 
a treaty of friendship with the British Government, it is unlawful 
for any person to wage religious war against the British or to 
break the treaty. 

(3) . That the Mutiny of 1857 was not a Jehad but a 
rebellion. 


(4) . That it is unlawful to entertain any hostility towards 
the Government even for those (while residing in this country) 
who consider India a Dar-ul-Harb (or place of war). 

(5) . That the circumstances which would justify Jehad 
do not exist in India, and that no person from Calcutta to 
Peshawar and from Sindh to the Deccan may wage Jehad against 
the British Government. 

(6) . That the British Government is just and desirous of 
maintaining public tranquility, and so on 

On page 130 of the Hidayat-us-Sail the author asks the 
question (44), Whether the Mahammedan States in India, like 
Hyderabad and Bhopal, &c., are Dar-ul-Islam (places of safety) 
or Dar-ul Harb, and then shows that these States and all other 
cities in India are Dar-ul-Islam and not Dar-ul-Harb. After 


quoting some passages from works on Theology in support of 

his assertion, he sums up as follows on page 133:_ 

“As India generally and the Mahammedan states in particular 
are not Dar-ul-Harb according to Imam Aazum, therefore hijrat 
from this country is also unlawful, and according to the learned 
men of Delhi, Eampur, Bhopal, this country and especially the 
Mahammedan states are Dar-ul Islams.” 


At page 40 of the Muwaidul-awaid, after quoting at length 

the traditions prohibiting rebellion, the Nawab says :_ 

“ In fine, to fulfil one’s promises and carry out the contract 
be they new or old, with integrity, is the guiding principle 
of Islam. It is for this reason that when kings and rulers 
of the Islamic faith, possessed of wealth and power, enter into 


( -22 ) 


a treaty of peace with any Government, they heartily respect 
and observe the terms of it to their dying moment; and 
consider the violation of it a great sin, opposed to the spirit 
of Islam. 

When any Mahammedan ruler concludes a compact with 
any Government, his subjects are understood to be included in 
the same, and bound to think themselves responsible for carrying 
out the terms, although nothing may have been said of them 
at the time of the agreement. Because when the prince of 
a State contracts with a Hakim for the time being, he does 
so on behalf of all his subjects and not for his own private 
self. In a word, the agreement may be looked upon as one 
entered into by the subjects. 

It is a fact well known to every one that during the Sepoy 
Mutiny, when the whole native army rebelled against the British 
Government and began to commit as much mischief and cruelty 
as it could, the native Chiefs that respected their covenant did 
not prove faithless, but remained firm in their allegiance to 
the Paramount power. 

But those who acted against their plighted faith, besides 
making themselves notorious in the eyes of the British officials,, 
acted against the principles and practices of Islam . 

One who is insincere and violates his promises, is according 
to his own religion, looked upon as having committed a great 
sin, and to what punishment is such a man to be ultimately 
doomed, will be perfectly known on the Day of Judgment. 
In short, such a man is a loser in this as well as in the world 
to come. 

When the laws of Mahomed enjoin the fulfilment of our 
promises during the whole term of a treaty, it is incumbent 
upon every native Prince or Chief to observe the same till the 
period of its close, and faithfully carry it out without a thought 
of violating it. 

It is well known that the agreements and treaties with their 
several articles and propositions detailed in each treaty entered 


( 23 ) 

mto fey the Native Princes with the British Government, are 
bmdmg upon the former in the order of descent and generation 
after generation. All native rulers should not, therefore 
depart even a hair’s breadth from their treaties, in order that 
they may be free from the stigma of faithlessness and insin¬ 
cerity in this world, and that of shame and disgrace in the 
next*” 

And again at page 34 of the same work the writer observes— 
The recompense of Jehad, the virtues of which are contained 
in the Koran, can be obtained only when all the causes and 
conditions, for undertaking a Jehad, exist according to the Shara. 

The Mahammedan public now-a-days, for the most part 
possessing no sense or learning, and more prominently those 
endowed with wealth and authority among them, have mis¬ 
understood sedition for Jehad. No one possessing an idea of 
sense and learning can support or acknowledge their misguided 
zeal. Accordingly, in the year of the Mutiny, some of the 
Indian Rajas, Babus, Nawabs and Nobles, made India the 
hot-bed of disorder, strife and commotion, in the name of Jehad. 
This spirit, of revolt and open resistance raged so high in 
them that even women and children, whom every Shariat 
protects from massacre, were made the innocent victims of 
their bloody swords. Now this act of theirs is regarded by 
every Mahammedan as quite opposed to the laws of Mohamed 
and is never justifiable in any sect of Islam. Any one foment¬ 
ing such a sedition at the present day is as much guilty as 
the rebels of 1857. The Mahammedan theologians are not at 
one with regard to the proposition whether India is a Dar-ul- 
Harb or a Dar-ul-Islam, since the advent of the English rule. 
Those of the Hanafia church, to which the Indian Musalman 
mostly belong, unanimously assert that India is a Dar-ul-Islam. 
When India is so regarded Jehad can have no meaning here. 

In fact it is a great sin. 

Even with such Mahammedan doctors, inclusive of some 
of those at Delhi, who think that this country is a Dar-ul-IIarb ; 


( 24 ) 


as long as we do not abandon the country and settle in another, 
where Islam prevails, Jehad is not justified. 

In short, to live in a Dar-ul-harb and wage Jehad in it, 
is on no account justifiable, either in the eyes of the ancient 
or the modern Musalmans. 

Besides the principal condition for Jehad is to be the follower 
of such an Imam* as combines in himself wisdom, learning, 
justice, acuteness of intellect, and a penetrating judgment and 
possesses all the attributes of a spiritual guide. The wise, 
sensible, and experienced portion of the population must ap¬ 
prove of his Imamat . 

The women and the children, the old and the infirm, must 
not be put to death. If any person other than the true Imam, 
claim his office, he must be puf to the sword as rebellious. 
The above conditions were all absent during the mutiny as 
well as at present. 

In short, to think of waging Jehad in India at the present 
day on the basis of the Mahammedan laws, is nothing but 
madness. 5 ’ 

At page 187 of the Kowz-i-Khutkhusib it is stated. “It 
may be affirmed with perfect certainty that at the present mo¬ 
ment there is not a single man from Calcutta to Peshawar, and 
from Sindh to the Deccan who believes that Jehad against 
the British is lawful, because the conditions which would justify 
it do not exist, and it seems difficult that they should come into 
existence at the present moment. 55 

In the Tarjman Wahabia, which is represented as being 
a proof of the Nawab’s disloyalty, the writter, after referring 
to the treatises written by Nawab Abdul Latif Khan, C. I.E., 
and himself, and proving by quotations from them that India 
is not a Dar-ul-Harb, makes the following remarks on page 72 :— 

According to the Ilanafia creed, I have represented India 
as Dar-ul-Islam in several of my publications, and mentioned 

* One of these is that he should be a Koreish, an attribute which no present 
Muhammadan ruler can boast of. 



( 25 ) 

iu them the absence in this country of the conditions for Jehad 
a fact alluded to in the ‘ Terahwin Sadi.’ The book containing 
the expression of my views was published before I had the 
knowledge of the discussion that had arisen in Calcutta on the 
subject, which Maulvi Abdul Latif Khan Bahadur took so 
much pains in, and which, subsequently, led to the publication 
of a criticism by Syed Ahmad Khan Bahadur, C.S.I. on Dr 
Hunter’s book. 

There has never been any religious discussion in any of the 
sects at Bhopal; and consequently the officials of this State have 
had no knowledge of the religious disputes prevailing in other 
towns and no desire to read such books. 

On the other hand, in the year 1298 A. H., owing to a poli¬ 
tical necessity, I read the criticisms and the newspaper alluded 
to above, because I found the statements therein contained just 
in keeping with the principles of Moslems in general and those 
of the AM-i-Hadis in particular.” 

Similarly in a work entitled 'the Ibrat, and written during 
the Kusso-Turkish war, on the doctrines of Jehad and Hijrat (or 
flight), the conditions stated as necessary for Jehad are such as 

do not exist at the present moment, while in the Iklil I quote 

as an instance, from Qazi Mohamed bin Ali Shaukani (my 
master) that the least qualification (of justice) for an Imam 
should be, that he should exert himself for the public good and 
for the maintenance of peace and order like the British Govern¬ 
ment. Further on, at page 73, the author remarks : “ and also 
the charge of Wahabeeism or Jehad against the Ulemas of the 
Ahl-i-Hadis sect, whether of ancient times or of the present day, 
is without foundation. Ko intelligent man, with the exception of 
half-read Mullqhs, can for a moment assert that it is lawful to 
wage Jehad against the British Government, or that the'condi- 
tions which would justify it exist at the present moment.” And 
again, at page 79, be says :— 

“As Syed Ahmad Khan Bahadur has discussed the question 
ol Jehad in his reply to Dr., Hunter, so I had, before the 

(4) 


( 2S ) 


•knowledge of this fact, denied Wahabeism altogether, first 1 
in my work called Ihdayat-us-Sail , and secondly , in another 
entitled Rauz-i-Khasaib . Thirdly , in my work known as 
; Mawaid-ul-Awaid , I had mentioned that to violate one’s pro¬ 
mise was an egregious sin and that Jlad was not lawful in 
Hindustan. Fourthly , I had written in my work entitled 
Tdj-i-MolcolM an account of the Wahabis from the histories 
of Christian divines. The gist of them all is, that the rising 
of the people during the Indian Mutiny is termed Jehad only 
by those who are unacquainted with the origin of the Islamic 
faith, and who wish to cause disorder in the country and destroy 
the prevailing peace. 

As long as an Imam of the Koresh family and no other, 
possessing all the. attributes enjoined in the Shara , is not 
selected with the unanimous consent of the wise and the 
principal men of a country,—an Imam whom they think it 
their bounden duty to obey,—and all the conditions for levy¬ 
ing Jezzias , and pressing people to become Musalmans do not 
exist, so long Jehad is impossible. Such an Imam has not 
been found in the world for hundreds of years, and the condi¬ 
tions of Jehad have always been wanting. The mere existence 
of the masala of Jehad with the non-existence of its condi¬ 
tions, in the books of Islam does not make any Musalman 
a Jehadi , a Wahabi, or a rebel.” 

Similar passages are to be found in other works of the 
Nawab which we are unable to quote for want of space. The 
passages already quoted are sufficient to convince any person 
(unless he is prejudiced against the Nawab and the Ahl-i-Hadis) 
that the object of the author in quoting doctrines and passages 
which imply hostility against the British Government was not 
to excite the people to rebellion against the British. Nor can 
it be asserted that the Nawab believed in such doctrines, as 
in that case he would not have so often and so earnestly refuted 
them. Nor would he have in the Hidayat-us-Sail itself and 
other works, published in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu, inserted 


( 27 ) 

passages in which loyalty to the British Government is enjoined 
and hostility towards them is prohibited. Indeed, he would 
not have taken the trouble of removing the impression of 
hostility with so much force. 

The passages which we have quoted from his own writings 
show beyond all doubt that he does not believe in doctrines 
which he has quoted in his works from other authors. On 
the contrary, his own belief is apparent from the opinions 
he has expressed from time to time. It is also clear that the 
!Nawab did not quote these passages with a view to inciting 
the 'people to rebellion, but in order to show his universal 
knowledge of every doctrine without reference to its correct¬ 
ness or otherwise. ****** on page 139 of the Al-ibra- 
fi-Masail-il-Jihad-wal-Hijrat which we take the liberty of 
quoting in support of our assertion. After quoting the opi¬ 
nions of various Theologians and Muhadises as to whether 

India is a Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam, the author says :_ 

In my opinion the point is a doubtful one and no decisive 
or satisfactory answer is to be found. It is for this reason 
that I have, as a follower of the Hanfi sect, stated in the Hida- 
yat-us-Sail, India to be a Dar-ul-Islam, while elsewhere accord¬ 
ing to the Muhadises (of Delhi whose opinions have been 
quoted and not all the Muhadises,) India has been represented 
as Dar-ul-Kufr (place of infidelity). In this work I have 
collected all the opinions without expressing my own opinion 
as to the correctness of any one of them.” 

The passage quoted clearly shows that the Hawab is not 
in the habit of inquiring into the correctness of the opinions 
of other writers whom he quotes. On the contrary he is in 
the habit of quoting opinions opposed to his own belief. Under 
these circumstances, the fact of his copying certain doctrines 
from the Banian and Saif-i-Tabar does not at all warrant the 
conclusion that he is a rebel. ******* 

The correspondent of the Alim-ul-Akhbar of Calcutta in 
its issue of the 1st March 1886, commenting on those passages 


( 28 ) 


of tlio Nawab’s works which prove his steadfast loyalty to the 
British, says that the works were written only through fear of 
the authorities, and that it was after the fact of his writing 
works for inciting people and publishing them in India, Turkey 
and Arabia, had baen brought to the notice of the Government 
by General Daly and others, that the Nawab set himself to the 
task of refuting his previous writings and asked his co-reli¬ 
gionists at Bhopal, Agra and Lahore (by Lahore the writer 
evidently means the Ishat-us-Sunnah) to denounce Jehad. 

The writer, according to a well-known proverb that “a 
liar has no memory,” further on contradicts himself and says 
that the Eawab wrote and induced his friends to write in favor 
of the British because he knew ten years ago that he should 
be punished for his previous writings. 

We have already referred to the correspondent of the 
Seraj-ul-Akhbar of Jhelum who says that the Ahl-i-Hadis 
denounce Jehad merely to please the Government, but that 
they really consider it their duty to wage war against the 
British. According to him the passages quoted from the 
Banian and Saif-i-Tabbar in the Hidayat-us-Sail, faithfully reflect * 
the views of the Nawab, while the passages, we have quoted 
above, do not actually represent the Nawab’s views on the 
subject and in support of his view he mentions the fact of 
Maulvi Ismail undertaking a Jihad. 

We consider it necessary to refute the misrepresentations 
and mischievous charges preferred by these critics. The asser¬ 
tions of the first named critic that the works the Nawab in¬ 
culcating Jihad were mostly printed in Turkey and Arabia 
and a smaller number in India is a barefaced lie. Of all the 
works published in Turkey, Arabia and Egypt,* not one incul- 

* The following are the works which the proprietor' of the Al-Juwaib for his 
benefit and not at the instance of the Nawab published in Turkey:—Bulgh ( a 
Dictionary ) Lughtatul Islam ( History ) Naswatus Sukram ( Literature ) Alamul 
Khafaq ( Derivation of words ). 

The following are the works printed in Egypt:—Fath-ul-Bari ( Hadis ) Eateh- 
ul-Byan (commentary ) Nuzul-ul-Abrar (prayers) Nail-ul-Auturr (Hadis) Ivhulasa 
Asma-ul-rijel (Annals) Wasaya Ibn Arabi (Sufi-ism) Kosala Basharat Amal Saliha 
(moral science) Ahkam-i-Musturat (rights of women, &c.) Bouz-i-Nadiya (Hadis). 



( 29 ) 


cates Jehad against the English. If the writer has the slightest 
regard for truth or has any sense of honor he should come 
forward and point out at least one of the hooks in which Jehad 
against the English is inculcated. The statement, that the 
Nawab wrote against Jehad, only when the matter was brought 
to the notice of the Government, by General Daly, is also in¬ 
correct. The fact is, that Government expressed their objec¬ 
tions through General Daly or Colonel Bannerman to the 
Khutba on J ehad merely, and not to the passages in the Hida- 
yat-us-Sail, and it was for this reason that the apology he 
tendered for the publication of the Khutba on Jehad did not 
include the Hidayat-us-Sail (21st March 1881). This is clear 
from an official document in which it is stated, that, “ the 
Government had no knowledge of the existence of the Hidayat- 
lis-Sail in 1881.” These facts prove, beyond doubt, that the 
assertion of the writer, that the Kawab contradicted the Hidayat- 
us-Sail, after the matter was brought to the notice of the 
Government has no foundation whatever to rest upon. 
Secondly, even if it is true, it reflects credit rather than 
discredit on the Nawab, and proves his loyalty, inasmuch 
as he refuted those passages the moment he came to 
know that the Government took exception to them. 
Previously, he did not consider that the passages in ques¬ 
tion would do any harm to Government and inserted them in 
his works through ignorance. Thus in a manner the Nawab 
changed his attitude when he found that these passages were 
considered hostile, and made ample amends for any harm he 
might have unconsciously done. To denounce such commendable 
action and misrepresent an act of loyalty as one of rebellion 
is to deliberately mislead the public. 

* * * * The statement that the Hawab began to write 
against Jehad, because he was ten years ago sure of the punish¬ 
ment which he has now received, is falsified by his own 
previous. statement. Our remarks in refutation of the first 
assertion of this writer are equally applicable to his second 


( 30 ) 

statement. Another argument the soundness of which will 
not be questioned by any unprejudiced mind may also be 
adduced to show that the writer’s last statement is false. The 
passages, which in the opinion of this critic, the Hawab knew 
would cost him his title, &c., and to avert which calamity he 
took to denouncing Jehad, are reproduced in the Ibra, published 
three years after the Hidayat-us-Sail in 1294 A. H. Surely, 
if the Nawab had known that those passages would do any 
harm to the Government, he would not have reproduced them 
in a later work. It is simply impossible, that the Nawab, who 
had for the past ten years been trying to remove the impression 
of disloyalty, should have, three years later so far gone out of 
his way as to repeat what he knew, would result in his present 
disgrace. On the contrary, the fact of his reproducing the 
passages under notice, so far form his attempting to ward off 
the punishment which he believed awaited him, shows clearly 
that he did not consider these passages injurious to the 
Government. * * * * 

In reply to the correspondent of the Serajul Akhbar, we 
need not say more than that, if it is right to ascribe an action 
to bad motives, notwithstanding that it could be attributed 
to good faith, the Ahl-i-Hadis can assert with regard not 
only to the writer, but also his and every other newspaper, 
edited by Hanfis, that their professions of loyalty to Government 
are empty phrases signifying nothing, and that they are at 
heart the enemies of the British Government, and cordially 
wish for the downfall of their rule. Should the Government 
(God forbid) find itself compelled to fight against any Maham- 
medan power, and especially the Sultan of Turkey, whom they 
regard as their lawful Caliph and in whose name the Khutba 
is read on every Friday and on the Eed festivals, the Hanfis 
would, one and all, rebel against the Government and aid 
its enemies. The Hanfis can refute this assertion by exactly 
the same arguments as the Nawab and if we were inclined 
to give a “tit for a tat” it would be necessary for us to give a 


( 31 ) 

detailed account of the Mutiny of 1857 and mention the 
Maulvies and Khans who were the cause of the Mutiny, 
and who one and all belonged to the same sect as the critics 
of the Nawab, to the entire exclusion of the Ahl-i-Hadis, 
so as to convince these calumniators of Siddiq Hasan Khan 
that the suspicion against the Ahl-i-Hadis is purely imaginary, 
while the same charge can not only he preferred but proved 
against them by undeniable facts. We, however, as journalists, 
feel ashamed to have recourse to any such alternative, and 
will simply content ourselves with praying that the Almighty 
may be pleased to endow our opponents with a sense of shame, 
which they evidently seem to be utterly ^devoid of, so that 
they may refrain from giving publicity to seditious writings 
in order to misrepresent loyal Mahammedans as the enemies 
of the Government. 

The correspondent further refers to the Jehad of Maulvi 
Ismail as a reason for suspecting the Ahl-i-Hadis of disloyalty 
and intrigue. This, however, cannot in any way reflect on 
the good faith and loyalty of the Ahl-i-Hadis ; because, as 
we have already stated, the Maulovi waged Jehad against 
the Sikhs, who interfered with the performance of the religious 
duties of Islam, and not against the English, who do not 
countenance any interference in religious matters. On the 
contrary, as we showed by a quotation from the treatise of 
the Honorable Syad Ahmad in our last number, the Maulvi 
openly declared that Jehad was unlawful against the English. 
How can the Jehad of> Maulvi Ismail, in the face of these 
facts, be construed into an argument for supecting the sincerity 
of the professions of loyalty and good faith made by the 
Ahl-i-Hadis ? * * * 

The third work, for publishing which the Siddiq Hasan. 
Khan has been charged with disloyalty or hostilty to the 
Government, is the Tarjman-i-Wahabia which was written 
and published in 1884. An English translation of this work 
was also published at Calcutta in the same year. The critics 


C 32 ) 


of the Nawab have impressed on the Government that the 
work in question has been written in praise and defence of 
Wahabis—an act which shows that the writer is far from 
being friendly to the British. The discussion of a subject 
like this, they say, at a time when Government is engaged 
in the difficult task of fighting aginst the Mehdi and that too 
by the husband of the Begum of Bhopal, one of the chief 
native States in India, was highly impolitic. 

They further state that it has been persistently stated in 
the Tarjman that those who pass under the name of Wahabi 
in India are peaceful and loyal subjects of the Queen-Empress, 
and that the writer is an admirer of Wahabeeism, &c., &c. 

Perhaps this statement they support by the following 
passage in the Iqtrab-us-Sait (the 4th work written by the 
Nawab), with regard to which they assert that “ the Mehdi 
is stated as being like Abdul Wahab, the founder of Wahabee¬ 
ism, in order to incite the Wahabis to Jehad” ; or in other 
words, the fact of the Nawab’s praising Wahabeeism is 
equivalent to his espousing the cause of the Mehdi and exciting 
the Indian Wahabis to aid the latter. 

It is true that in the work in question the Nawab defends 
the Alil-i-Hadis community of India, styled Wahabis by their 
enemies, and has refuted the charge of disloyalty against them. 
It is also true that in the Iqtrab the Mehdi is stated to be 
like Abdul Wahab of Nejed. But the conclusion which has 
been drawn from these statements is entirely wrong and mis¬ 
leading. Such a conclusion would have been perfectly justified 
if the Nawab had expressed his concurrence with the creed 
of Abdul Wahab, or that he himself and the Ahl-i-Hadis 
in India were his followers. But since the Nawab has, in 
several works, declared that he and the other Ahl-i-Hadis, so 
far from concurring, differ from him and do not follow him, 
it is anything but fair to draw the conclusion which the Nawab’s 
enemies have drawn. On the contrary, it may be reasonably 
inferred that the Nawab prohibited the Ahl-i-Hadis in India 


( 33 ) 


from taking up the cause of the Mehdi, as the latter was like 
Abdul Wahab, who belonged to a different creed from theirs, 
and that consequently they must not think of aiding him or 
expressing satisfaction at his successes. 

Now, in order to establish that this is the only conclusion 
which can be drawn from the passages in dispute, and that 
the opposite conclusion is wrong, the point which need be 
proved is whether the Nawab has or has not in his works 
expressed his concurrence and that of the Ahl-i-Hadis with 
the views of Abdul Wahab ; and whether the Ahl-i- Hadis 
actually do or do not follow Abdul Wahab. 

In support of our assertion that the Nawab has neither 
declared nor he and the Ahl-i-Hadis actually follow Abdul 
Wahab, we quote some passages from the works of the Nawab, 
and defy those who hold an opposite view to produce a single 
passage, or even a line, from the works of the Nawab or of 
any other Ahl-i-Hadis in which he has declared himself to be. 
the follower of Abdul Wahab. We will first show from the 
Tarjman that the Nawab denies being either a Wahabi or a 
follower of Abdul Wahab. 

At page 6 the writer remarks :—■ 
u The present work has been undertaken with a view to show 
to Government, that there is no Musulman in the Native 
States and no British Musulman subject who is inimical to 
the Government; that such of those living in Native States 
as have been charged with Wahabeeism by their enemies, 
are certainly not Wahabis.” 

And again on the same page :—- 

“ In India and the Native States in particular, there is no 
Wahabi in the general acceptation of the word, and no atheisti¬ 
cal layman, and none ill-disposed towards the liberal and 
benign Government; and if there is any let us know who 
these Wahabis are, where and in what Native State are they 
to be met with, and what materials of war and rebellion and 
what means of abetting the rebels they possess. The curse 

( 5 ) 


( 34 ) 


of God be on liars. Men evilly disposed try by means of 
trick and treachery to fasten their own guilt upon others, and 
thus get themselves honoured by the Hakims. But God always 
puts the liars to disgrace.” 

The following occurs on page 14 :—- 

“ Question. Who was Abdul Wahab of Nedjed, the so- 
called founder of the Wahabis? Both he and his son were 
the followers of the Imam Hambal, while the Indian Musal- 
mans are either SJ/ias , and the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa, 
or Amil-bil-Hadis, i.e., those who follow the sayings of the pro¬ 
phet without reference to any particular Imam. The followers 
of Imam Hambal are not to be found in India. 

Muhamed, the son of Abdul Wahab, was born in Ainia, 
in the Province of Nedjed, in the year 1115 A. H. In 1200 
A. H. he made himself public in parts of Hedjas and Yaman. 
He died in 1206 A. H. and belonged to the Hambli church. 
The followers of Imam Hambal are generally found in Hedjas 
and Yaman, but not a single Hambali is to be found in India. 

True Islam enjoins adherence to the Koran and the sayings 
of the Prophet, and not to the teachings of any particular 
professor of religion. It is, therefore, quite wrong to call 
Abdul Wahab and his son, who lived and died as Hamblis, 
founders of any new religious sect. To charge, therefore, 
such Musalmans as act up to the dictates of the Koran, and 
follow the sayings of the Prophet alone, with being the 
followers of Abdul Wahab, betrays sheer ignorance and a 
spirit of uncharitableness. 

An orthodox Musulman thinks it his first duty to obey God 
and His Prophet above all other religious and sectarian views. 
He makes God and His Prophet his sole guide and pays no 
regard to the words of any religious demagogues, not to men¬ 
tion Mahamed-bin-Abdul Wahab, who is of no consequence 
compared to them. Islam has produced thousands of learned 
men ; but no Musalman, even the very lowest, thinks it his 
duty to tread in their path or believes that he will arrive at 


( 35 ) 

tlie real truth only by adopting any particular course indicated 
by them. 

In short, the history of the Musalmans of India ever since 
the introduction of Islam in India is briefly this :—At the 
time of the introduction and propagation of Islam in India 
the rulers of this country happened by chance to be Hands. 
The people as a rule followed them. This state of things 
once commenced has continued up to this time. Asa matter 
of course, all the learned men, Kazis, Muftis, and other State 
officials and influential persons, were men of the Hanfia 
persuasion. So that a body of learned men collected the 
Fatwae Hindia, also called Fatwae Alamgiri for having been 
compiled by the order and during the reign of the Emperor 
Aurangzebe Alamgir.. Sheik Abdurrahim of Delhi, father of 
the well-known Shah Wali-ullah, was also among the number. 

After him came Sah Waliullah, a great Mohaddis and 
doctor among the Hands and a strict adherent of Sunnat and 
Jamaat. He examined good many religious doctrines and distin¬ 
guished between the sound and the unsound ones. 

Mohamed Ismail of Delhi, his grandson, followed in his 
wake. He explained the true laws of Mohamed and rooted 
out paganistic theories and heretical doctrines which greatly 
interfere with the peace and well-being of Musalmans in this 
as well as the next world. He eradicated many evils and cus¬ 
toms that w.ere productive of mischief in this and the world 
to come. 

In short, the family of Mohamed-bin-Abdul Wahab was 
the follower of the tenets of Imam Hambal, and Maulvi 
Mahomed Ismail, a native of India, had no connection with 
him as a disciple. Hor is there any reason to suppose that 
they were known to each other. How then are the learned 
and the illiterate of this country, spoken of as followers of 
Mahamed-bin-Abdul Wahab, is a mystery to every thinking 
mind, and betrays nothing but sheer ignorance and inimical 
feelings of a certain class of people. For everybody knows 


( 30 ) 

that since the time of Mahamed-bin-Abdul Wahab up to the 
present, there has been no communication or friendly inter¬ 
course between the people of India and the inhabitants of 
Nedjed. In short, there is not the least comparison between 
the ways and manners of the people of this country and those 
of the Nedjedians. Moreover, none of the sects of the Indian 
Musalmans has even maintained, in words or writing, that 
true faith and pure Islam are to be found in the followers of 
the Nedjedian teachers alone, and that the rest are only a 
benighted flock.” 

At page 27 he says :— 

“ To call the believers of one Supreme and Omnipotent Deity 
by the name of Wahabis and connect them with Mohamed-bin- 
Abdul Wahab is wrong for various reasons : 

First. They do not call themselves by that name : nor do 
they derive their origin from Abdul Wahab. They have not se¬ 
lected for themselves, the name they go by, unlike the Shias 
who have chosen to call themselves such in contradistinction to 
Sunnis. Had they chosen the name 6 Wahabis’ for them^ 
selves they would possess something indicated by the term. On 
the other hand, they hate the appellation and deny any connec¬ 
tion with the title. It is certainly illegal and unreasonable there¬ 
fore to call any one by an annoying title or nickname. The 
truth is that we, the believers of one God and followers of the 
true prophet, consider it an abuse to be called W^abis, and 
do not connect ourselves with any of the ancient famous Imams. 
Neither do we call ourselves Hanafis or Shafais, nor are we 
pleased with the title Hamblis or Malikis. How is it possible 
then to follow Mohamed-bin-Abdul Wahab and accept the 
creed set up by him ? 

Secondly. In order]to be initiated into the secrets of any 
religion, it is necessary that one should be the pupil of a religi¬ 
ous teacher, or be his home disciple, believe in his powers, or be 
his fellow-countryman. Now, then, the admission of the Indian 
Musalmans into the creed of Abdool Wahab, depends upon their 


( 37 ) 


passing through the above initiatory states. But it *so happens 
that they do not possess any of the connecting links to favour 
the above presumption. 

Thirdly. A long period has elapsed since the death of 
Mohamed-bin-Abdul Wahab. In Nedjed where he was born and 
bred, he has not left any grandsons or great grandsons to teach 
his doctrine to the people or persuade the Indians and the 
Arabians to follow his doctrines. Nor do the Indians follow 
his creed or conform themselves to his teachings. It is highly 
unjust then to call them Wahabis and connect them with Mo¬ 
hamed-bin-Abdul Wahab. 

After devoting several chapters without comment to the 
History of the Wahabis of Nedjed, the writer at page 59 
says :— 

“ In fine, no one appears to have written in any book or 
history anything more than that given in these seven chapters. 
The facts enumerated correspond with the investigation of 
Christian theologains, decidedly admitting of no further investi¬ 
gation. 

It appears from the above-mentioned facts that there is no 
Indian Musalman that is a follower of Wahabeesim ; because 
the doings of the Wahabis in Arabia generally and Mecca and 
Medina particularly, and the molestation received at their hands 
by the people of Hejaz and the inhabitants of those holy cities, 
have never been perpetrated by the Musalmans of India. None 
in India can be so audacious. 

It also appears that the Wahabi sedition was completely 
crushed in 1818 A. D. ; and no one rich or poor in Nedjed, did 
afterwards rise in rebellion.” 

# And further on at page 74 the writer remarks :—“We are 
not bound to follow either Abdul Wahab or Mohammed Ismail 
of Delhi” There are numerous other passages to the same 
effect in the Tarjman. In fact the work was written solely for 
the purpose of showing that the Ahl-i-Hadis were not Wahabis 
and that they had no connection whatever with the Wahabis in 


( 3-8 ) 


Nedjed. The work is a defence of the Ahl-i-Hadis whom their 
enemies call Wahabis.- The critics have misrepresented the 
object of the work as being an advocacy of Wahabeeism of 
which they say the Nawab is an admirer. When this work 
was published we made the following remarks in vol. 6 
That the work in question is gospel for thorough-going 
Mohammedans who consider it a part and parcel of their 
creed to pay due regard to the claims of Government and 
the people. It is an excellent deterrent for ignorant Moham- 
medans who take delight in seeing Mohammedans fighting with 
the followers of other religions and joining them under the im¬ 
pression that such an act is a lawful Jihad. It is an honest 
councillor for the Government and is eminently calculated ta 
cement the bonds of union among the Mohammedans of various 
sects.” After giving our reasons for the above remarks at con- 
siderable length we suggested that the Government or the* 
Nawab should publish an English translation of this work. This 
suggestion commended itself to the hTawab who caused a, 
translation of it to be published at Calcutta which was at 
the time approved by the Government and by men of light 
and leading. 

The Indian Chronicle of the 6th April 1885, commenting on< 
the Tarjman, remarked that the ISTawab had laid right-thinking 
men under a debt of gratitude, and that he was entitled to the' 
thanks of Government. A copy of this work was sent by the 
Begum to the then Viceroy and Governor-General, Lord Ripon, 
who thanked the Begum in his letter dated 26th December 1884. 
It is a pity that what was then considered a praiseworthy act 
should now be represented as an act of disloyalty. 

Similar passages occur in the Mawaidul Awaid, which was 
published two years before the Tarjman. For instance, after 
repeating the passage quoted from page 27 of the Tarjman, the 
writer says at page 37 

u To call those Indian Muhammadans who do not worship 
tombs and pirs and prohibit people from unlawful acts by the 


( 39 ) 


name Wahabi is entirely false for several reasons. In the first 
place, they do not represent themselves as such, on the contrary 
they call themselves Sunnis in opposition to Shias and Mottabib 
in opposition to Maqalids. If there were anything of Waha- 
beeism in their creed, they would call themselves by that name 
and should not resent the epithet. But, as a matter of fact, we 
-resent the epithet as if it were an abuse. Since we do not follow 
even the Imams Hanfi, Shafi, Malki and Humbli, what could be 
the meaning of our being the followers of Mohammed-bin-Abdul 
Wahab ? ” The Nawab then goes on to give his reasons, which 
we cannot reproduce for want of space. It may be urged by the 
opponents of the Ahl-i-Hadis that these passages in which the 
author denies being a Wahabi were written after the rebuke ad¬ 
ministered by General Daly in 1884 ; but to show the ground¬ 
lessness of such an assumption, we will refer our critics to those 
works which were written several years previous to. 1881. One 
of these works is the Hidayat-us-Sail, the very work which is 
adduced as a proof of the Nawab’s disloyalty. At page 121 of 
this work, he says. “ We are not bound to follow either Abdul 
Wahab or Mohammed Ismail of Delhi” ; and again at 
page 114 :— 

“ His treatises are well known, but they cannot be had in 
India. These treatises contain maxims both authenticated and 
unauthenticated. Abdul Wahab is more especially blamed for 
two vices : one, that he calls everybody an infidel without 
reason ; and secondly, he resorted to bloodshed without suffici¬ 
ent cause.” At page 116, after showing that it is a mistake to 
say that Abdul Wahab was justified in calling the Muhammadans 
as infidels, and stating the reason of such mistake he says :— 

“ Hence it is clear that one who commits a mistake is not an 
infidel. The learned of the past and present age, as also the 
Ahl-i-Hadis, &c., are at one on this point. We say nothing of 
those who call persons guilty of certain superstitious Kafirs, but 
we hesitate in calling him a Kafir for several reasons. Firstly, 
according to the prophet, those who call others Kafirs are liable 


( 40 ) 

to be severely punished.” The Nawab then gives six other 
reasons showing that Abdul Wahab was mistaken in calling 
people infidels. At page 119, after stating that Shah Wali 
Ullah of Delhi and his sons were the first to introduce the Ahl- 
i-Hadis religion in India, the Nawab writes as follows on 
page 120 :— 

“ Some of the selfish Ulimas, finding 'that the introduction 
of the Ahl-i-Hadis religion interfered with their income and 
position, rose against the Ahl-i-Hadis and named this sect as 
Wahabis in order to excite the people against them, although 
they knew full well that Abdul Wahab belonged to the Hambli 
Church, while Shah Wali Ullah was a Hanfi and had no con¬ 
nection whatever as a disciple, &c., with Abdul Wahab.” 

Another work, entitled the Hitah-fi-Ahwalis Sihahisistah, 
which the hfawab published in 1866 i.e ., 15 years before the re¬ 
buke administered by General Daly in 1881, contains the same 
remark which we quoted from the Hidayat-us-Sail (page 114). 
The writer at page 73 says :— 

“The treatises of Abdul Wahab of Nedjed are well-known. 
They contain maxims authenticated and unauthenticated. He 
is blamed more especially for two vices, viz. one, that he called 
everybody an infidel without reason ; and secondly, because he 
resorted to bloodshed on insufficient cause. Mahamed-bin-Abdul 
Wahab thought that he had based his creed on that of Ibu Taim 
and Ibu-ul-Qyama, and he adopted their maxims so far as he 
knew them. In adopting these maxims he was right in some 
respects, but in others he made a mistake and misapprehended 
them.” 

It is clear from these passages that the Nawab proves that 
the Ahl-i-Hadis do not concur but differ from Abdul Wahab, 
and consequently his comparison of the Mehdi with Abdul 
Wahab proves that the Nawab condemns the former and pro¬ 
hibits people from aiding him. It is entirely wrong to conclude 
from this that he praises the Mehdi or urges people to take up 
his cause. 


( 41 ) 


The fourth work, on account of which the Nawab is charged 
with rebellion, is the Iqtrab-us-Sait, which was published at 
Agra by Nurul Hassan, a son of the Nawab. The critics of 
the Nawab have impressed on Government that the real author 
of the work is the Nawab himself, and that in order to create a 
rebellion in the country and at the ,same time to save himself 
from its consequences he has published it at Agra as the work 
of his. son. 

They have made exactly the same remark regarding the 
Iqtrah-us-Sait as the Tarjuman Wahahia, viz., that “the discus¬ 
sion of a subject like this at a time when Government is engaged 
in the difficult task of fighting the Mehdi, and that too by the 
husband of the Begum of Bhopal, one of the chief native states, 
is highly impolitic.” 

They also state, that this work contains passages, in which 
the people are openly incited to rebellion, and refer to the pages 
and lines containing the passages in question, which we quote 
according to the order in which they have referred to them in 
the following table, with a view to replying to them in the same 
order. 


No. 

No. of 
page. 

Line. 

SUBJECT. 

1 

6 

11 

The time of the Mehdi’s appear¬ 
ance is near at hand. 

2 

6 

19 to 20 

The supremacy of the Christians 
is a sign of the near approach of 
Qiamat (last day). 

3 

37 

9 

Every virtuous man may be called 
a Mehdi. 

4 

41 

20 

The reason of the decline of Mu¬ 
hammadans is that they have given 
up Jihad. 


( 6 ) 











( 42 ) 


No, 

No. of 
page- 

Line. 

SUBJECT. 

5 

57 

1 

The people of every country are 
bound to tender their allegiance to 
the ruler of that country whether he 
be a Non-Koreshi or a usurper. 

6 

57 

5 

We helpless people are living un¬ 
der rulers who do not follow the 
Sunnat or the prophet. They are 
devils at heart though human in 
shape. 

7 

58 

11 to 13 

One who makes Jehad with the 
hand is a momin (or true believer). 

8 

59 

9 

Shahid is one who is killed in 
action in the path of God. 

9 

64 

13 

Her Majesty Queen Victoria and 
His Excellency the Viceroy will be 
dragged before the Mehdi with chains 
in their necks. 

10 to 
15 

116 to 
120 

1 to 13 

The history of the Mehdi of Sou¬ 
dan ; 11 that he can be a Mujadad ; 

12 the belief of the Nawab that all 
infidels will be lulled by the Mehdi ; 

13 that the account of his reverses 
given in the English papers is false ; 

14 that the Mehdi resembles Abdul 
Wahab (in order to excite the Ahl-i- 
Hadis) ; 15 that there can be a Mu¬ 
jadad in every century who strength¬ 
ens the faith by means of the Jehad 
and saves it from all temporary dan¬ 
gers. This statement, it is alleged, 
is made in order to excite the 
people to Jehad and induce them 
to regard the Mehdi of Soudan as 
a Mujadad, though not the true 
Mehdi. 















( 43 ) 


No. 


16 


No. of 
pages. 


Line. 


SUBJECT. 


120 

140 

141 
220 
221 


15 & 17 
21 
1 

17 

4 


Prayer for the appearance of the 
Mehdi and the advent of Christ ; 
that the Mehdi is expected to appear 
in the beginning of the present cen¬ 
tury ; that he is expected to appear 
in the fourth year of the 14th cen¬ 


tury. 


17 


That the present is an age of vice 
and sin. 


18 


* 


The anxiety of the writer to prove 
that the signs of the Mehdi as given 
in the traditions are incorrect and 
that the tradition containing them is 
unreliable. The object of the Nawab 
in so doing is that the absence of 
any qualification in the Mehdi of 
Soudan may be attributed to the in¬ 
correctness of the tradition, and not 
that the Mehdi is not the real Mehdi; 
in order to show that he may be 
a true prophet, though not so in 
strict accordance with the tradition.. 
The Nawab has here and there 
referred to the Mehdi aS the false 
prophet merely to conceal the real 
object of the work, and that he 
has given no other reason for his 
being a false prophet than that 
it is necessary for the Mehdi to be 
descended from a Sayad, so that the' 
Soudan Mehdi may be regarded by 
the people as the true Mehdi if he 
could be proved to be a Sayad,. and 
to convince the people of India of 
this is very easy. 


* The number of pages and lines is not given. A portion of No, 17 can be 
found in pages 43, 52 and 54 ; but No. 18 is not to be found at all. 











( 44 ) 

By far the greater portion of this work-has been wrongly 
quoted, and wherever it has been correctly quoted the conclusion 
drawn is diametrically opposed to what is meant by the writer. 
There is not a single passage, whether referred to by the 
Nawab’s opponents or not, showing that the Nawab has attempt¬ 
ed to incite the Indian Muhammadans to rebel against the 
British and aid the Mehdi, or that he wrote or caused this book 
to be written for that purpose. On the contrary, it is clearly 
stated that “ at the present time there is no condition justifying 
a lawful Jihad in existence, and it is simply impossible that the 
Mehdi of Soudan should be the real Mehdi. Those who regard 
him as the true Mehdi are ignorant of Islam : in fact they are 
infidels.” In short, the object of the work is to induce people 
not to regard the Mehdi of Soudan and his Jihad as a lawful 
one. 

Before showing that the critics exaggerated and perverted 
the facts we will quote those passages which prove that the work 
was actually written with object we have assigned to it. At 
page 2, line 4, after the Khutba the author observes :—, 

At present fitnas are the order of the day not only in 
worldly but also in religious matters. For some time past, a 
hue and cry has been raised that somebody in Soudan in 
Egyptian territory has claimed to be the Mehdi. He first fought 
with Egypt and now the British Government is engaged in sup¬ 
pressing him. The Jawaib, &c., sometimes mention this man as 
false Mehdi and sometimes as Mutmahdi (a pretender) ; common 
people who are neither learned nor endowed with common sense 
jump to curious conclusions on hearing these things. They are 
ready to raise disturbances at the appearance of every pretender. 
They are not aware that during the last thirteen hundred years 
there have been several Mehdis (good and bad), whom some 
people like themselves took for the real Mehdi. But no learned 
man acknowledged their pretensions to the Mehdiship whether 
the pretenders were good men or otherwise. There have been 
about twenty such men whose names and detailed history are 


( 45 ) 


given in the Hijajjul Krama ( a work of the Nawab). Eveii 
in Jaunpore, one Syad Mohammed pretended to he the Mehdi, 
but he was not successful, only a small number of people joined 
him and their descendants are still to be found in Hyderabad. 
Of the pretenders, those who were virtuous claimed the 
Mehdiship while they were in a state of sukr ( ecstacy) and 
repented afterwards, but others represented themselves as Mehdi 
for the sake of territorial aggrandisement. Some of these latter 
were successful in some countries. For instance, a person named 
Mehdi was born among the Qarmta. He was a Jew but he 
passed himself as a syad and made a large number of people 
Bafzis. His family continued to reign over Egypt for several 
centuries without intermission. Such fitnas (disturbances) have 
always occurred in the world. Indeed, some people have had 
the audacity to pretend to be prophets while others have set 
themselves up as gods. These were, one and all, really dajals or 
Anti-Christs. The true prophet has prophesied that there will 
be about 30 false Anti-Christs among the Muhammadans. The 
names of all such pretenders are given in works on history, 
while the accounts of those who are appearing from time to time 
are being recorded by men of learning from time to time. 

Ibn Abdirab-i-hi, in the third volume of the Iqd-ul-Farid, 
states that one man pretended to be Mehdi in the time of the 
caliph Mehdi, while another pretender appeared in Busreh, a 
third represented himself as Abraham in the time of Mamun ; 
a fourth claimed the Mehdiship in the time of Mehdi ; while a 
fifth appeared in the time of Khalid-bin-Abdula Qasri, who 
wrote a verse in opposition to one of the Quran. 

A sixth pretender claimed the Mehdiship in the court of 
Abdulla-bin-Hazm. Shamam-bin-Ashras saw a man in imprison¬ 
ment who pretended to be a prophet. The eighth man who 
claimed to be prophet appeared at Riqa in the time of Haroun 
Rashid. The ninth false prophet appeared in the time of 
Mamum Rashid. The tenth and eleventh appeared in Kharasan 
and Kufa. The twelvth pretender was in the time of Mamun. 


( 46 ) 


The thirteenth pretender called himself Noah, and prophesied 
that another deluge was about to come. The 14th pretender 
was brought from Azarbaijan in the time of Mamun. Before 
these Aswad Anasi, Musailma Kazab, &c., also pretended to bo 
prophets. Altogether there have been seventeen false prophets. 
An account of them is given in the Iqd-ul-Farid, &c. 

At page 5 the author continues :—“No true Muhammadan 
can take part in a commotion, whether in wordly or religious 
matters (sic). At such time, according to the Muhammadan 
law, they should break their arrows, swords and lances. They 
must neither kill anybody, nor abet others in doing so. They 
must neither raise disturbances, nor advise others to do so. On 
the contrary, if anyone attempts to kill them, they should allow 
themselves to be killed, because it is better to be oppressed than 
being an oppressor. This world is merely a dream and a mirage. 
Those who live in this world are merely travellers. The 
moment they close their eyes they find that it was nothing. 
We must see that we fare well in the next world which is yet to 
come. Nominal Muhammadans there are countless, while true 
believers are very rare indeed. Some raise the standard of 
Jihad ; others talk about reform in Islam. Some pretend to be 
Mehdi, and others represent themselves as Imams. It is a matter 
of indifference to them what is true Islam. They consider it is 
Islam to raise disturbances and that commotion is reform.” 

The following passage occurs on page 6 :— 

“ If they had been in the habit of studying Hadis and Qoran 
they should have known that the present is the period of Chris¬ 
tian supremacy and not their decline. Why,* then, are such 
schemes being matured before the *advent of Christ and of the 
Mehdi ? The result, in our opinion of all this, will be disaster- 
ous in this world as well as in the next, and not for our good in 
the next. The minor preliminaries of the last day have already 
come to pass. Among the chief signs of the approach of the 
day of judgment is the* supremacy of the Christians, which is 
visible to all men, great and small, in land and sea. The second. 


( 47 ) 


sign is the appearance of the true* Mehdi, the third being* the 
descent of Christ from the heavens. The first sign has already 
appeared, and it shows that the second and third are about to 
appear. Why, then,, should we be in a hurry to long for the 
speedy downfall of Christian supremacy, so that none but Mahom- 
madans should remain ? He who has placed over us the Chris¬ 
tians will change the existing state of things when it pleases 
him. The earth and heaven are not under our command that 
we should succeed in our plans and raise all sorts of distur¬ 
bances.” 

At page 7 it is stated “there has not been a single distur¬ 
bance or commotion which has not been already prophesied in 
the Hadis. Those alone give fatwas of Jehad who are unacquaint¬ 
ed with the science of Hadis, as the conditions of Jehad have 
long since been conspicuous by their absence in the world. We 
do not say that Jehad is not allowed by Islam, or that the 
order for J ehad has been set aside. What we say is, that war 
at the present time, whether between Mahommadans and Kafirs, 
or among the Mahommadans themselves, cannot be called 
Jehad.” 

At page 9 'the author says :—“ Rebellion, originated with 
Moawya. From that time Mahommadan rulers have been fight¬ 
ing among themselves to the great mischief of mankind. 

It was from similar motives that some people pretended to 
be Mehdis and others claimed their right to succeed to the calip¬ 
hate. The history of Islam also records the names of others 
who took unlawful possession of the kingdoms of others, or who 
raised the standard of revolt and became independent.” 

Further on the writer gives an account of the false prophets 
including the pretenders to the Mehdiship, and at page 19 says, 
“as for impostors, their number is legion, among these are the 
false Mehdis whose number is also considerable.” 

At page 37 the author observes :—“The man who passes 

* The opponents of the Nawab take him to task for these statements, and 
w>ill be replied to further on. 



( 48 ) 


under the name of Mehdi of Soudan is certainly not the true 
Mehdi as he does not possess the qualities which the real Mehdi 
ought to do according to the prophecy ; as for the title 
Mehdi it is applicable to every pious and virtuous man ; but the 
question is about the Fatimite Mehdi and not those who bear 
that name. Even the four caliphs are referred to as Mehdis. 
Similarly, in Abasia and Qaramta there have been several persons 
of that name ; some vicious and pious persons have also claim¬ 
ed to be Mehdis. Mehdi means one who has found the 
true way and hence every body who has found the true way 
can be called a Mehdi. The real Mehdi will not merely be 
a Mehdi but also one who will show the true path. Mehdi 
will be his title only and his real name will be Mohammed-bin- 
Abdulla and he will appear at Mecca and not at any other place. 
Let the signs, which according to the prophecy should precede 
the Mehdi appear, and then the true Mehdi will appear. Ignorant 
people base every-thing on their own imaginations. They 
neither possess common-sense, nor do they follow the prophecy 
contained in works of authority.” 

The writer then devotes pages 68 to 121 to a detailed account 
of the signs which will precede the Mehdi. These signs 
are some twenty-one in number, among them “the rising up 
of a gold rock out of the river Euphrates ; the spread of 
infidelity in Arabia by Sufiani ; the appearance of the army 
of Haris of Khorasan ; the battle at Median ; the reconquest 
of Constantinople ; the appearance of a hand from the heavens, 
which will take place about the time of the appearance of the 
Anti-Christ.” 

At page 56 the author says :— 

The Muhammadans are not united ; nor have they any 
Imam. At present they should hold themselves aloof. There 
are two Muhammadan Kingdoms ; one in Turkey and the other 
in Morocco, but their rulers are not Imams or caliphs and 
are called Sultan or Deputy Imams, as it is necessary for an 
Imam to be a Koreish. 


( 49 ) 


Again at page 56 it is stated that:—- 

“To make Jihad with the hand is the work of the Imams ; 
to fight with the tongue is the work of the learned ; to feel 
disgusted (at vice) at heart is the work of the common people. 
The Imams are no longer to be found,; while as regards the 
learned, those who, by preaching or compiling books, try to 
induce people to follow the Qoran and the traditions, make 
Jehad, while those who keep quiet are dumb devils.” At 
page 59 the author observes :—'A martyr in this case— i. e., in 
the tradition which says that acting according to- the Qoran 
is equal to a hundred martyrdoms—is one who is killed in a 
fight in the way of God ; to obtain such martyrdom at the 
present time is quite out of the question.” And at page 118 the 
writer says :— 

“ As regards the question whether the Mehdi of Soudan is 
the real Mehdi. There is no reason to show that he is the 
true Mehdi although according to the reply of Osman 
Digma he claims to be Mehdi and at the same time a leader 
of the faithful ; but where are the qualities which according to 
the prophecy he should possess ? Several persons good and 
bad before him have already claimed the Mehdiship but without 
success.” 

At page 119 it is stated, “We do not know who is the man 
who calls himself Mehdi of Soudan, who calls himself Syad 
and son of Abdulla. Surely he is not the real Mehdi.” 

The following passage occurs on page 121. 

“Common people are apt to follow every pretender and 
impostor who brays like an ass. Everybody who pretended 
to be God, Prophet, Mehdi, Mujadad or Mujtahad or Saint, 
found some people to follow him. Whatever may be the result, 
people lend their ears to rumour and believe in every gossip.” 

The passages quoted above show clearly that the E'awab 
states with the utmost certainty that the Mehdi of Soudan is 
not the real Mehdi ; that his Jehad is not a lawful one ; that 
those who regard him as Mehdi and his Jehad as lawful 

( 7 ) 


( 50 ) 


are ignorant of the tenets of Islam and devoid of common- 
sense and that the real object of the work in question is to 
prevent people from taking up the cause of the Mehdi and not 
to call upon them to aid him. We will now proceed to prove 
that the passages on which the opposite conclusions are based 
are wrong. 

As regards No 1, the critics of the Nawab have deceived 
the Government, inasmuch as at page 6, line II, it is stated 
that the day of judgment, and not the time for the appearance 
of the Mehdi is near at hand. 

The passage in question runs as follows :—“If you possess 
common-sense you may depend upon it that these things are 
the signs of the approach of Qiamat; those who think that 
these disturbances, rebellion, promise-breaking will cease 
and that they will become the rulers of the world by such means 
before the Mehdi’s appearance and before Christ descends from 
the heavens are like Qais and Farhad, i. e., mad.” 

As regards the imminence of the Last Day, that has been an 
article of faith before the British came to India, indeed, ever 
since the time of the Prophet, and consequently it is anything 
but just to conclude that any such statement is tantamount to 
inciting people to rebellion. Nor can the statement that the 
time for the appearance of the Mehdi is very nearly construed 
into an attempt at exciting people to rebellion, unless it- is also 
stated that the Mehdi will appear during the time of the British 
and that the Muhammadans should be prepared to take' up his 
cause. But, as a matter of fact, there is no such statement as 
that in the w T ork in question, and consequently it is wrong to 
conclude that the statement—that the Mehdi is about to appear— 
is equal to an attempt to incite people to rebellion. If mere 
belief in the Mehdi is equivalent to rebellion, then the author 
alone is not guilty of the charge, but all Maliommadans alike, 
whether British subjects or others, including the critics of Siddiq 
Hassan Khan (with the exception of a few of the Ahl-i-Hadis 


( 51 ) 


of the past and present time),* who do not believe in the advent 
of the Mehdi. Under these circumstances the critics should 
have advised the British Government to hang or transport all its 
Mahommadan subjects who entertain such a belief, or at least 
some such treatment as that accorded to the Hawab should have 
been recommended for the chiefs of Mahommadan States, such 
as Hyderabad, Rampur, Tonk, Bahawalpur, &c., &c., because 
there is not one of these chiefs who does not believe in the ad¬ 
vent of the true Mehdi,. This is a fact which the JSTawabV 
critics are fully aware of. Those who are" not aware of this 1 
article of Mahommadan faith can easily satisfy themselves as 1 
to the correctness of our statement. If all those people who 
believe in the advent of the Mehdi, and whose number is 
legion, are considered loyal, we fail to see why the Hawab 
should be regarded as a rebel for entertaining a similar belief. 

As regards statement Ho. 2, the critics of the Hawab havd 
resorted to exaggeration anl deceit to a much greater extent. It 
is true that in the Iqtrab (page 6, line 20 ) the supremacy of 
the Christians is stated to be a sign of the approach of the day 

* Kazi-ibn-Khaldoon, one of the ancient writers does not believe in the ad¬ 
vent of Mehdi; there are also some Ahl-i-Hadis who hold a similar opinion. 
Their belief, however, is not based on the fact that the miracles and other super¬ 
natural phenomena which will accompany the Mehdi are logically impossible, as is 
the case with the naturis. On the contrary they do not believe in the Mehdi be- 
©au?e the traditions about him are not quite trustworthy. The more important 
works on Hadis, namely Sahih Bokhari and Mosliirr are silent on the subject. This- 
was proved in the Ishat-us-Sunnah long before the Nawab* or any other Mahom*. 
madan was taken to task on this account. The secondary works contain Hadises- 
whicli are open to criticism. Kazi-lbn-Khaldoon Hazrmi, in his work entitled. 
4* Al-Ibr, Dewanal Mubtada wal Khabar fi Ayyam ul Arab wal Ajum wal Berber,”' 
has refuted all the traditions on the subject. The Nawab has replied to these 
criticisms in the Hijajul Ivarama, &c , but his reply, so far from refuting the criti¬ 
cisms of Ibn-Khaldoon, strengthens them. We hope to be able to write on the sub¬ 
ject hereafter and deal with these traditions at length. The object of the present 
note is simply to show that some Ahl-i-Hadis of the past and present time do not 
believe in the advent of the Mehdi. The fact of the Mahommadans generally or 
of the Nawab entertaining such a belief does not show that all the Ahl-i-Hadis be¬ 
lieve in Mehdi. 



(• 52 )' 

of judgment, but it is entirely wrong to construe this statement 
into a reflection on the Christian system of Government or an 
attempt at inciting people to rebellion. Such an insinuation 
would have been justified if in the Iqtrab or other Mahommadan 
works it had been alleged that everything which is considered a 
sign of the approach of the day of judgment would be necessari¬ 
ly bad. But since even good things (among them the descent 
of Christ, the appearance of the Mehdi, the conquest of Jerusa- 
lem, and the rising up of a gold rock out of the River Euphrates, 
as detailed at page 19, 20, 60, and 68) are admitted by the 
author to be the signs of the Qiamat, it is simply preposterous 
to conclude that such a statement is calculated to reflect prejudi¬ 
cially on the Christian system of Government or that it is calcu¬ 
lated to create a rebellion. 

This reminds us of a story of the Sikh times when some 
clever servants similarly made a fool of their ignorant master. 
There was a Sikh Rais of the name of Karam Singh, most of 
whose employees were uneducated and ignorant. A Farsi Khan 
( Persian scholar) unfortunately entered the service and gained 
the confidence of the Sirdar on account of his great abilities. 
This excited the jealousy of the rest of the servants, who told the 
Rais that the Farsi Khawn was so impudent as to write his name 
with a small instead of a big Qaf.* The Sirdar accordingly dis¬ 
missed the Farsi Khawn. It is a pity that our brethern should 
have played a similar trick with the British Government, by 
telling them that the JSTawab had stated their supremacy as being, 
one of the signs of the approach of the day of judgment, without 
stopping for a moment to think of the risk they would run 
when Government came to know that what are regarded as the 
.signs of the Qiamat are not necessarily all bad. 

Statement No. 3 reminds us of the story of the person who 
attempted to prove that the Qoran prohibited prayer by quoting 
the first portion of a verse, viz., u do not be near prayer,", 
and omitting the last portion, namely, “ when you are drunk." 


* The big Qif is equal to Q and the small kaf to K. 



( 53 } 


It is true that at page 37 of the Iqtrab it is stated that “as- 
regards the word Mehdi it is applicable to every pious man,” 
but in the sentence preceding and following this quotation it is 
clearly stated that the Mehdi of Soudan is not the true Mehdi, 
as wilt be seen from the whole passage quoted at page 31. 

Besides in other passages quoted already the same statement 
is made with the utmost certainty. The critics deserve great 
credit for having made a Karam Singh of the Government by 
omitting the preceding and following sentences and quoting one 
single sentence in order to show that the so called Mehdi was 
stated by the Nawab to be the real Mehdi. 

The critics have also similarly deceived Government as re¬ 
gards statement No. 4. No doubt the giving up of Jehad is con¬ 
demned at page 41, &c., but when we find at page 56, 58 and 59, 
such passages as “ to wage Jehad with the hand is the work of 
the Imams” and that “ Imams are no longer to be found that 
« a t the present moment there is neither a Muhammadan people 
por the Imams that “ the present is the time for holding 
aloof and there is now no opportunity of dying a martyr in a 
fight,” we cannot resist the obvious conclusion that the giving 
up of Jehad is denounced not for the purpose of exciting people 
to wage it in the future, but merely to give an account of the 
past. Indeed, such a statement is equal to saying that the Ma- 
hommadans retained their supremacy so long as they continued 
to advance their political power by means of the sword and that 
by giving up the sword they have become weaker. Remarks 
like these occur in works written by Mahommadans as well as 
Christians, but they cannot be regarded in the light of attempts 
to incite the people to rebellion. 

The reason of this is to be found in the fact that the word 
Jehad does not merely signify a religious war which is waged 
when the performance of religious duties is interfered with. 
Even political wars undertaken for purposes of national 
aggrandisement are also called Jehad. We would refer those who 


( 54 ) 


care to satisfy themselves on this point to the Anjuman Journal 
of the 25tli December 1885, and 1st January 1886. 

The Government have also been similarly deceived as regards 
statement No. 5. It is certainly stated in the Iqtrab ( page 57), 
that it is lawful to submit to a conqueror even if he were a non- 
Qoreshi. The critics of the Nawab have told the Government 
that this statement means that, although the Mehdi of Soudan is’ 
not the true Imam and the Mahommadans whether of India or 
Arabia are bound to submit to him, because he is a conqueror, 
but the writer, only four lines before this passage at end of page 
56, remarks that “ it is not lawful for the people of one country 
to tender their allegiance to a non-Qoreish conqueror of an¬ 
other country.” At page 119 the writer according to the admis¬ 
sion of his critics, hesitates to admit that the Mehdi is a Syad.' 
It is ther efore clear that in the opinion of the author the Mahom¬ 
madans of India are not bound to tender their allegiance to the 
Mehdi. The following is the literal rendering of the passage 
we refer to :— 

“ At the present time there" is neither a sect of Mahom¬ 
madans nor an Imam. It is a time when we should hold aloof. 
There are two Mahommadan empires, one in Turkey, the other 
in Morocco, but their rulers are not Imams and consider them¬ 
selves the Naibs ( deputies ) of Imams and are called Sultans 
and not Caliphs, as it is essential for a Caliph to be a Qoreish. 
Besides, the Wali of one country cannot lawfully receive the 
homage of another country which is not under his rule. The 
subjects are bound to obey the ruler of that country alone. 
When one ruler cannot administer all Mohammadan countries 
and the work of administration becomes difficult, then, according 
to the Mohammadan Law, each country is bound to tender its 
allegiance to its own ruler or Wali, whether Qoreshi or con¬ 
queror.” 

The critics of the Nawab have also played upon the credulity 
of the Government as regards the 6th and 17th charges. The 
passages referred to are of course to be found in . the Iqtrab 


( ) 


( page 57, &c.), but their object is not to denounce the Govern¬ 
ment or the political changes that have occured. On the contra¬ 
ry, the writer bewails at the condition of Mohammadan Umras 
and the revolution which has occurred in religious matters. In 
support of this argument we will refer the reader to pages 12, 
43, 52 and 54, where the author particularly bewails the change 
that has come over the Mohammadan religion. Here is what 
he says on page 12 :— u Ever since the occurrence of these fitnas 
among Mahommadans, Islam and Mahommadans have ceased to 
be powerful ; the weakness of both has been increasing from 
day to day, so much so that only the name of Islam and the 
letters of the Qoran now remain. The mosques are inhabited in 
appearance, but piety seems to have left them. The Ulemas are 
the worst under the sun. The fitnas proceed from them and go 
back to them.” 

The writer continues to give an account of the 46th sign 
of the day of judgment at page 43—“ People will feel ashamed 
to act according to the precepts of the Qoran ; Islam will get 
weak; Mahommedans shall entertain feelings of hostility; 
learning shall disappear ; the age of man shall decrease ; 
births shall cease ; the produce of land shall decrease ; 
trustees shall become proprietors and vice versa ; liars shall be 
considered truthful ; murders shall increase ; palaces shall be 
erected, mothers shall be unhappy on account of their child¬ 
ren’s disobedience, barren women shall be happy ; rebellion 
and selfishness shall increase ; deaths shall increase ; falsehood 
shall increase and truth shall decrease ; people shall take to 
diverse callings, become more sensual and pass (sentences) on 
mere suspicions ; rains shall be very rare and produce less ; 
learning shall decrease and ignorance shall increase, children 
shall be the cause of anger ; there shall be heat in the cold 
weather ; people shall be openly indecent ; the earth shall be 
contracted ; the Khuttib (or the reader of Khutba) shah read 
false Khutbas ; vicious people shall triumph.” 

Again at page 52 the writer quotes a tradition of the pro- 


( 56 ) 


pilot on the authority of Huzaifa-bin-Yaman, who states that 
the prophet said that the signs of the approach of the day of 
judgment will he 72, and that “people shall cease to worship 
God ; betray trusts ; take interest; consider it lawful to tell 
lies ; will care little about committing murder ; consider it a 
light offence ; raise high palaces ; sell their religion for the 
sake of this world ; give up their relatives ; law shall become 
weak ; falsehood shall be regarded as truth ; people shall put 
on hair or silk cloths ; when tyranny triumphs and divorces 
increase, &c.,” and similarly at page 54. 

In these passages most of the things which are represented 
as being the signs of the approach of the last day are to be 
found among the Mahommedans and the object of the writer 
is to express his regret at them alone. To say that they are 
meant to reflect on the Government is to make a Karam Singh 
of the latter. Even if it were granted that the writer has 
denounced the religion of the Government or the time of 
Government itself on account of its religion as that of vice 
it does not prove the writer to be a rebel. We wonder whether 
there is a single person, Hindu or Mahommedan, with the ex¬ 
ception of those who profess no religion, who likes Christianity 
or who does not dislike Government on account of its religion. 
Why should we go further than the critics themselves and see 
if they like Christianity or acknowledge Government as their 
religious leader. If they do so, why should they call: them¬ 
selves Mahommedans and why should they not get baptized 
and become Christians. 

The critics have, like the man who tried to prove that the 
Qoran prohibited prayer and quoted only one portion of the 
passage , omitted the rest in No. 7. The tradition in 
question, no doubt, appears on page 58, but it is at the same 
time stated “ to fight with the hand is the work of the Imams 
who are no longer to be found. Among the rest the learned can 
make Jihad by speech and writing, while the Jihad of common 
people consists in regarding vice a bad thing at heart.” Even 


( 57 ) 


this remark is made with reference to the Mahommadans among 
themselves without reference to others whether Government 
or other non-Mahommadans. The whole of the passage on 
page 58 of the Iqtrab is given at page 49. 

We leave it to our readers to decide how clearly the mean¬ 
ing of the passage has been distorted in order to deceive the 
Government and make a Karam Singh of it. 

The same remark applies to number 8 in which only a 
portion of the passage has been quoted and the rest omitted. 
No doubt it is stated at page 59 that one who is killed in the 
path of God is a martyr, but it is also stated that “ such a 
martyrdom is quite out of the question at the present time.” 

The reason why martyrdom is now impossible is also given 
at page 7, 56 and 58 of the Iqtrab and has been already 
quoted by us at page 47 and 49. 

The passage on page 59 runs as follows :— 

“ The tradition related by Abu Horaira is “ that one who 
imitates the prophet when the Mahommadans go astray is 
equal to a hundred martyrs.” Here martyr means one who 
has died in action in the path of God. Such a martyrdom 
at the present moment is quite out of the question. It is a 
great thing if we get the martyrdom attainable by imitating 
the prophet; but it is a pity that nominal Mahommedans do 
not benefit themselves by following the Sunnat.” 

It is clear from the above that the critics have played 
upon the credulity of the Government in this instance also. 

In charge No. 9 the Nawab’s critics have not only deceived 
Government but also have had the audacity to alter the 
phraseology to suit their own purposes. No mention is made 
in the , Iqtrab (either at page 64 or any other page) of the 
Empress of India or her Viceroy. The following passage is 
quoted on page 64 from Ishah-ti-ashrat-ul-Saat. “ The true 
Mehdi (not the Mehdi of Soudan) will conquer city after city 
from the east to the west ; the kings of India will be brought 
before him with chains in their necks. His coffers will be 
( 8 ) 


( 58 ) 

the ornament of Jerusalem,” To illustrate this the Nawab 
(if he is the author) * * * * * sa ys “ There is no king 
in India, There are only a few Hindu and Mahommedan 
chiefs, who are rulers in name. The Europeans are the great 
rulers of this country. They will probably remain the rulers 
of the country till that time, and will be taken before the 
Mehdi. Or it may be that some other nation will become the 
ruler of this country. The truth is known to God alone.” 

In this illustration the ISTawab does not instigate the Mahom- 
medans to bring about such a state of things. Indeed, if any¬ 
thing of the sort happens it will happen by supernatural* 
agency and as a miracle (as is firmly believed by those who 
believe in the advent of the Mehdi) and not by the power of 
Mahommedans. Besides, the Nawab does not express his cer¬ 
tainty about the Queen and her representative being brought 
before the Medhi. On the contrary, he expresses his curiosity 
Us to whether the rulers at that time will be Europeans or 
others, and he emphasises his doubt by saying that “ truth is 
known to God alone.” It cannot be concluded from this illus¬ 
tration ( which merely states the belief of the Mahommadans, 
and that too in a very doubtful manner ) that the ISTawab calls 
upon the Mahommadans to take the Queen and her representa¬ 
tive, &c., to the Mehdi or that he delights in the thought of 
their being taken to the Mehdi. Such a conclusion would have 
been justified if the writer had expressed his certainty that the 
Mehdi would appear during the time of the British, and had 
instigated the Mahommadans to take some hostile action against 
the Government. As a matter of fact, Mahommadans generally 
believe that before the day of judgment Islam will spread all 
over the world, and that no other religion, Christianity, 


* Vide Iqtrab, page 64, line 21, in which it is stated “ God will aid him by 
3,000 angels who will strike *his enemies on the face and the back. The advanced 
guard will be under the command of Gabriel and the rear guard under Michael 
and so on ad infinitum. 



( 59 > 


Judiaism, &c., will remain. If mere belief like this is sufficient 
to warrant the conclusion that those who entertain such a belief 
are rebels, then there can be very few of British subjects who 
can be free from this charge. * * * * * * * 

In statements 10 to 15 a similar course has been resorted to* 
From page 116 line 7, to page 120 line 13, there is not a single 
passage in which the author instigates the Mahommadans. Page 
116, from line 7 to end of that page, contains an account of the 
Mehdi of Soudan taken from the London News of 1st December 
1833, and further on an account of the battles fought and 
victories gained by the Mehdi is given from the Jaiwab and the 
English and Native papers. At the end of these accounts the 
following remark is made with reference to these battles—“ This 
fitna ( or disturbance ) still continues,” or in other words the 
Mehdi’s battles are represented as being equivalent to sedition 
and disturbances, and not lawful Jehad. The writer then re¬ 
produces from the Pioneer of the 4th April 1884, a letter of 
Usman Digma in reply to the proclamation of the British and 
at page 118 makes the following remark on Usman Digma’s 
reply 

“ The true Mehdi will do the same work as is stated in thn 
reply of Usman Digma, i.e. } he will compel Mohammadans to 
follow the Qoran and the prophet, and compel infidels to em¬ 
brace Islam. Those who oppose him will perish, whether they 
be nominal Mahommadans or others, ( as is clear from this 
letter). As regards the question whether the Mehdi of Soudan 
is the true Mehdi, no definite opinion can be formed on that 
head, although it appears from the reply of Usman Digma that 
he claims to be both a pious man and a leader of the Mahom¬ 
madans, but the true qualities, which according to tradition he 
should possess, are not to be found in him. Similar claims have 
already been advanced by wicked men, but they were found to 
be untrue. If this is the true reply, and is not the work of 
newspaper correspondents, then he may possibly be a Mujadad. 
A Mujadad appears at the end or beginning of a century. 


( CO ) 

Tajdid ( revival ) is sometimes effected by the sword, at others 
by preaching.” 

Again at page 119 the writer says :—“We do not know who 
or what sort of a man is the Mujadad, who calls himself Mehdi 
of Soudan and represents himself as the son of Abdulla. Surely 
he is not the Mehdi. After quoting the Pioneer of the 10th 
April 1884 the author remarks “ But there is nothing to 
prevent his being a Mujadad provided he possesses the qualities 
of one. We do not know what goes on behind a wall ; how can 
we know correctly what is taking place at such a distance. 
News-writers and Editors are not impartial people, they always 
write what is politic and shape every item of news to suit 
their own purposes. Although every item of news is liable 
to be exaggerated, but the news-writers of the present day 
are one and all untrustworthy. It is perhaps by an oversight 
that now and then they give a few correct items of news out 
of a thousand such items.” 

The account given in these passages is from the Lon¬ 
don News, Pioneer , &<?., and if to give such an account 
is to rebel against the Governmet, the papers from which it has 
been taken are more to blame than the Nawab. As regards the 
inference that the Mehdi is a Mujadad, that too has been drawn 
from the account given by these papers. Besides, the Nawab is 
not positive on this head, as he states that if this reply to the 
proclamation of the British Government is genuine and not the 
work of newspaper correspondents or other impostors, then it is 
possible that the Soudanee may be a Mujadad. To emphasize 
his doubt, the writer says that “he can be a Mujadad if he 
possesses the qualifications of one.” That the Nawab is doubtful 
as to whether the Mehdi actually possesses such qualifications is 
clear from the remark, that “if we do not know what is going 
on behind a wall, how can we know correctly what is going on 
at such a distance.” Besides, the fact of the writer consider¬ 
ing newspapers untrustworthy shows that he is doubtful 
as to whether the Mehdi is a Mujadad. To draw any othejr 


( 61 ) 


conclusion from these passages, viz., that the writer admits the 
Mehdi to be a Mujadad and regards the accounts of his reverses 
given in newspapers as unreliable is nothing but falsehood and 
deception.* 

It is clear from the remarks we have made that statements 
10, 11 and 13 are misleading. As regards No. 12 no such 
statement has been made in reference to the Mehdi of Soudan, 
hut about the true Mehdi as detailed at page 118 of the Iqtrab 
as quoted at page 59 of this article. As we have twice already 
stated such a belief is entertained by all Muhammadans with 
the exception of a few. Besides, it does not contain any 
instigation and does not refer particularly to the British 
Government. Under such circumstances to infer this as rebel¬ 
lion is to brand all Muhammdan subjects of the Queen with 
disloyalty and to deceive the Government. 

With reference to No. 14 we have already remarked at 
page 18 that the Mehdi of Soudan has not been compared to 
Abdul Wahab for the purpose of exciting people to rebel 
against Government and aid the Mehdi, hut to induce them, to 
regard him as a bloodthirsty tyrant and agitator like Abdul 
Wahab, and therefore to refrain from taking up his cause. 
Any other inference is quite unjustifiable. Statement No. 15 
is not to he found in the Iqtrab at all; on the contrary, the 
following remark, which fully contradicts the statement under 
notice, appears on pages 118 and 119. “Tajdid ( revival ) is 
sometimes effected by the sword and sometimes by preaching. 
But it is essentially necessary for the Mujadad to revive the 
Sunnat and destroy superstition. He should not covet riches, 
sovereignty and dignity; should do no religious act for the sake 
of this world hut for the sake of God. 

Given these conditions, and anyone can he a Mujadad, 
whether he he king such as Umar-bin-Abdul Aziz, or Iman, 

* In the work in question the writer considers those conditions as untrust¬ 
worthy which show him to be a Mujadad, and not the account of his reverses as 
wrongly stated by his opponents. 




( 62 ) 


as Iman Ahmed-bin-Habal, or Durwesh, as Sheikh-ul-Islam- 
Ibn-Taimia or Qazi, as Imam Mohamed Showkani or Mujtabid 
as Sayad Mohamed-bin-Ismail, Amir Yamani, or a Sufi as 
Ibn -Arabi. In fact there can be a Mujadad in every nation 
and tribe. Indeed, there have been more than one Mujadads 
at one and the same time in various places. The modes of 
Tajdid or revival of Islam are also numerous and not one in 
particular. It is clearly stated in the passage that a Mujadad 
can do his work by means of the sword, or pen, or preaching, 
as is done by the Ulemas, Sufis and Qazis, and that it is not by 
the sword alone that Tajdid takes place. Our critics have 
magnified a rope into a snake, and frightened the Government 
and made a Karam Singh of them. 

The critics have similarly deceived Government as regards 
No. 16. The passages referred to are no doubt to be found 
at pages 120, 140, 141, 220 and 221, but it is utterly 

wrong to infer that they are meant to incite the people to 
rebel against our present rulers. There are three statements 
in these passages ( 1 ) belief in the appearance of the Mehdi 
and the descent of Christ from the heavens ; secondly, the 
expression of a wish for their speedy appearance; and thirdly, 
the probablity of their appearing in the 14th century. As re¬ 
gards the first point, we have already stated that such a belief 
is entertained by the Mahommadan subjects of the Queen in 
general (including the native Mahommadan chiefs ), as also 
the Mahommadans of Arabia and other Mahommadan countries 
and that such a belief does not prove that they are rebels. The 
same remark equally applies to the second and third points. 

Those who believe in the appearance of the Mehdi and 
Christ, also long and pray for their speedy appearance. The 
compliler of the Ishah-li-Ashrat-us-Saha was the first to ex¬ 
press such a wish, and the Iqtrab being a translation of that 
work, the Nawab has simply copied the author of that work 
in expressing a similar desire. These who do not choose to be¬ 
lieve us can satisfy themselves by referring to the Ishah-li- 


( 63 ) 


Aslirat-us-Saha itself. In expressing the possibility of the - 
Mehdi appearing in the 14th century, the author of the Iqtrab 
has also imitated ancient writers and has not expressed any 
definite opinion of his own as is clear from the words “ perhaps” 
and “doubtful” with which all such statements are coupled. 
This can be verified by a perusal of the whole passage from 
page 219 to 221. At page 219 he quotes from a treatise of 
Imam Syute that the world will come to an end in 1500 A. H., 
and at page 220 one author is referred to as having inferred 
from numerical value of the letters of a verse in the Qoran 
on the subject that the end will come in 1704. Further 
on, the author states what has been referred to on page 220 
and then remarks that, “ Hence it is possible that the Mehdi 
might appear in the beginning of the century. Such a pro¬ 
bability is very strong. On the contrary, it should be no 
wonder if he should appear before the commencement of the 
century, as the Anti-Christ will appear during the time of the 
Mehdi at the beginning of the century. It is also probable that 
the advent of the Mehdi may be delayed till another century 
and that the next century may not fail to see him.” 

Again at page 221 he quotes from Abu Qubail that the 
people will join the Mehdi (admit his mission) in 1204 A. H. 
He then, in imitation of this unauthenticated statement, makes 
the remarks referred to at page 221. The author observes :— 

“According to this calculation the Mehdi should have 
appeared in the beginning of the 13th century. The whole of 
that century has, however, passed without seeing the Mehdi. 
The 14th century has now come upon our heads. At the time 
this work was compiled six months of this century were over. 
Perhaps, it may please God to be kind and merciful and the 
Mehdi might appear within the next four or six years.” 

Again, after stating on the same page on the authority of 
the author of Ishah-li-Ashrat-us-Saha that the world will come 
to an end in 1076 A. H., the writer observes :—“But this cal¬ 
culation has not turned out to be correct. The 14th century 


( 64 ) 


lias commenced. Wars and rumours of war are to be beard 
from all sides. It remains to be seen what side the camel will 
sit and what form will our poverty assume.” This shows 
nothing but doubt as to what will happen. 

It is curious that the Nawab at page 359 of the Hijajul 
Krama fi Asasril Qiama, after quoting from a treatise entitled 
Unquai Maghrab , written by the author of Futuhaht Macci, 
that the Mehdi will appear in 683 A. H., and according to his 
followers in 710, and according to Yacoob-bin-Ishaq Kindi, in 
743, the author reproduces the opposite opinion of Ibn Khaldun, 
who says that “ people pay attention to assertions like these and 
fix the circumstances of the time of this man’s (the true Mehdi’s) 
appearance by various foolish arguments, and when the Mehdi 
does not appear within that period they evolve other circum¬ 
stances and conditions out of their own inner consciousness or 
literary, imaginary, or astrological considerations. People of 
ancient and modern times have spent their lives in pondering 
over this subject,” and the Mehdi has not appeared. The fact 
of the Nawab quoting Ibn-Khaldun without contradicting him 
shows that the various statements concerning them do not re¬ 
present the opinions of the author who has simply re-echoed the 
opinions of Syute, Ibn Arab Abu, Qubail, the compiler of Ishah- 
li-Ashrat-us-Saha and other learned men, Sofis and astrologers. 

We will give another very curious instance of this which 
our critics have not brought to the notice of the Government. 
At page 154 of the Iqtrab, the writer quotes the following from 
Abu Abdulla ( whose correctness he knows is questionable ) on 
the authority of Abu Horaira, “ my cousins if you find Christ 
tell him that Abu Horaira gives his compliments to you.” The 
author then says “I ask my children that if any one of them 
finds Christ ( may the peace of God be on him ) give my com¬ 
pliments to him. If he should appear during the present 
century, during my lifetime, then there will be no necessity for 
their doing so on my behalf, as in that case I will do the same 
for myself.” 


( G5 ) 

In tliis instance, the Nawab has simply followed the example 
of Abu Abdul Hakim, inasmuch as notwithstanding the great 
distance between the advent of Christ and the absence of several 
signs which are to precede his advent, he talks of paying his 
compliments to him. These statements are in themselves proofs 
of the Nawab’s simplicity and prove that he has made them in 
good faith and is in no way disaffected at heart. To infer from 
these statements that the writer means to excite the Mahom- 
medans to revolt .is cruelly false. The three statements to which 
we refer lead to one result favourable to Government, but 
which the critics, blinded as they are by prejudice, fail to see* 
They show that the so called Mehdi is not the true Mehdi, as in 
that case he should not have expressed a belief in his future 
appearance or prayed for his appearance. How can a man 
prophesy about, or pray for, a thing which is already in exis¬ 
tence. It is very much to be regretted that the proper and only 
justifiable inferences that can be drawn from the Nawab’s 
writings are purposely lost sight of, while the utmost efforts are 
made to find fault with them in order to draw inferences which 
cannot be drawn. If this is not injustice we fail to see what 
else can injustice be ? 

As regards charge 18, the critics have been guilty of the 
most barefaced and cruel misrepresentation. It is for this 
reason that no reference as to pages, &c., is made to the 
pasage on which the charge is based. Nor is there anything 
of the sort to be found in the parts of the work referred to by 
them. On the contrary, pages 60 to 66 contain passages con¬ 
veying quite a contrary meaning. The Nawab states at page 
60 that the traditions about the appearance of the Mehdi are 
trustworthy and observes :—“ Chapter on the signs which will 
precede the end of the world. These signs are also numerous, 
one of them being the appearance of the Mehdi. This is one 
of the chief signs of the approach of the last day. The tradi¬ 
tions about him, notwithstanding their contradictory character, 
are many, Mahommed-bin-Hasan Asnawi gives them in the 

( 9 ) 


( 66 ) 

Manaqab-i-Shafi. There are numerous traditions about the 
appearance of the Mehdi and his being a Syad. 

Similarly Qazi Mahommed-bin-Ali Showkani has recorded 
the traditions about the descent of Christ, the appearance of 
the Mehdi and the Anti-Christ. People genearally endorse the 
same view. Ibn-Khaldoon alone questions their trustworthi¬ 
ness. He also questions the revelation of saints about the 
Mehdi. A reply to his criticisms has been given in the trea¬ 
tise called Iza. 

The traditions about the Mehdi, though not contained in 
the Sahih Bokhari and Sahih Muslim are considered trust¬ 
worthy by Abu-Daood-Ibn-Maja, Hakim, Tebrani, Abu-Yali 
Mausli, &c., which after the works of Bokhari and Muslim are 
trustworthy, especially in the absence of traditions, in the first 
named books, these latter must be regarded as trustworthy. 

These traditions about the Mehdi are confirmatory of each 
other. The authorities on which they are based are different. 
Some of them are sahih, others are indifferent, while some are 
weak or unauthenticated. But all sects of Islam are unanimous 
in the belief that at the end of the world some one from the 
Ahl-i-Bait (Syad) will appear and that he will strengthen Islam 
and do justice. The Mahommedans will submit to his autho¬ 
rity. He will become the ruler of all Mahommedan countries. 
He will be called the Mehdi, Jesus Christ and Anti-Christ will 
appear during his time.” 

Again on pages 61, 62 and 63, the writer gives some account 
of the true Mehdi. At first he gives his name as Mahommed 
or Ahmad, son of Abdulla, without saying anything against 
it; in another place he states his surname as Abu Abdulla 
without a word of comment ; while in a third place he gives 
his pedigree and states that he will be from the Ahl-i-Bait 
and a descendant of Fatima. 

This shows very clearly that the writer generally regards 
those traditions as trustworthy in which it is stated that the 
Mehdi will be a Sayad and a Fatimite. At the end of this Ire 


C 67 ) 


remarks that the authority of one Hadis about Abu Daood, &c., 
is a little weak, i.e., he does not mean to imply that the Hadis 
itself is untrustworthy but that it is based on an incomplete 
authority, as in that case, he could not have mentioned as trust¬ 
worthy the many traditions about the birth of the Mehdi. He 
then states that his birthplace will be Medina and according 
to Qurtabi it is stated that he will be born in the west 
and will come to Medina from his birthplace. Fifthly, he 
states that the place where people will tender their allegi¬ 
ance to him will be between Ibrahim and Hajar Aswad in 
Mecca. Sixthly, the place which he will escape will be 
Jerusalem ; seventhly, he gives the description of the Mehdi, 
(8) age and (9) his mode of life. He does not question the 
authenticity of any of these statements (excepting the tradi¬ 
tion of Abu Daood). On the contrary, in the Iza and 
Hijaj-ul-Karma he tries hard to prove the authenticity of 
these traditions and enters into a spirited refutation of the 
objections of Ibn Khaldoon and others who question their 
authenticity, although his refutation is not regarded as conclu¬ 
sive by those who consider these traditions untrustworthy. 

At page 65 he gives the following 13 signs by which 
the Mehdi will be distinguished : (1) He will be in posses¬ 
sion of the tunic, sword and banner of the prophet ; (2) A 
eloud will be over his head to overshadow him and a voice 
shall proceed from the cloud “ this is the Mehdi, the Caliph 
of God, pay homage to him (3) He will put a dry branch 
in the earth which will turn green ; (4) When people ask 
him to prove that he is the true Mehdi he will hold up 
his hand when a bird will come out of the air and sit on 
his hand ; (5) An army which will come to oppose him will 
be buried in the earth; (6) A voice shall proceed from the 
heavens that “ God has removed the tyrants and the Muna- 
fiqs from among you and placed on your head the best of 
the son of Islam. Join him ; he is the Mehdi ; (7) The 
.earth will throw out pieces of gold from its boscm ; 


i 68 ) 


(8) People will become contented ; (9) The Mehdi will disinter 
the treasury of Kaaba and distribute the money among the 
people ; (10) He will bring out the Tabut-i-Sakina from the 
Ghar Antakia or Tabria sea ; (11) The river will crack or 
dry as in the case of the Israelites; (12) People with black 
banners will come for him from Khorasan ; (13) He and 
Jesus Christ will meet together when the latter will offer 
prayer after him.” 

In the face of these statements the allegation of the 
Hawab’s critics that he (the Nawab) has attempted to discredit 
the Hadises about the Mehdi and especially the one about 
his being a Sayad in order that the Mehdi of Soudan may 
be easily made the true Mehdi, and that the absence of the 
distinguishing features may be attributed to the incorrectness 
of the tradition, and not to any shortcoming in the Mehdi, 
is an audacious falsehood. It is rather surprising, that when 
framing this tissue of falsehood and lies, it did not occur to 
them that it would be impossible to reconcile this with state¬ 
ment number 16, where they have represented the Nawab 
as praying for the appearance of the Mehdi. In short, they 
seem to have been under the impression that they would 
succeed in deceiving the British Government as easily as the 
servants of Karam Singh deceived their ignorant master, and 
that the Government will place implicit reliance on anything 
they might choose to say. They never thought that the imagin¬ 
ary charges preferred by them against the Nawab would not 
stand an impartial examination and that truth will come 
out after all. 

The statement that in order to conceal his real object the 
Nawab has here and there referred to the Mehdi as the “ False 
Mehdi, &c.,” is equally untrue. The Nawab has not in a 
single instance referred to him either as the true or false pro¬ 
phet. We trust that no one (provided he is not actuated by 
hostile feelings against the Ahl-i-IIadis ) will, after reading our 
remarks, doubt that the 18 charges preferred against the Nawah 


( 69 ) 


on tho strength of the Iqtrab are either false or greatly exag¬ 
gerated ; that the passages correctly quoted do not in the least 
show that they are intended to excite people to rebellion, and 
that the object of the work is to show that the so-called Mehdi 
of Soudan is not the true Mehdi, so as to prevent people from 
considering him the true Mehdi or Mujadad or aiding him, and 
that those who represent this work as being favourable to the 
Mehdi have been either the victims of misapprehension or have 
purposely tried to deceive Government. 

The critics of the Hawab also support the charge of inciting 
the people to rebellion from similar quotations from other works 
written by the Nawab, but as our article deals in an exhaustive 
manner, and is not confined to the discussion of the four works 
in question, we need not refer to them on this occasion. We 
feel sure that those who carefully and impartially consider our 
remarks will no longer credit the JSTawab with any intention of 
inciting the people against the Government. We have also 
every reason to believe that the Government and its official ( if 
they have been imposed upon by the misrepresentations of the 
Nawab’s critics) will, after a careful and sympathetic considera¬ 
tion of our remarks, no longer entertain any doubt as to his 
loyalty. 

We also think it our religious duty ( because the prophet 
says it is religion to give good advice ) to say that if these 
writings are the cause of the Nawab being deprived of his title 
and salute, the Government will, if they consider this defence 
satisfactory, restore the Nawab Consort to his former position, 
as the title and salute was not conferred on him because he was 
in any way entitled to them, but in consideration of the loyal 
services rendered by Her Highness the Begum of Bhopal at 
critical times, and therefore, in case of the Nawab being inno¬ 
cent of the charge of disloyalty it is as necessary to restore the 
title and salute as it was at first necessary to confer. If, how¬ 
ever, Siddiq Hassan Khan has been deprived of his title and 
salute for any other reason than disloyalty connected with the 


( 70 ) 


affairs of Bhopal, then we venture to think it is quite enough 
that he should no longer be allowed to interfere in the affairs of 
the State, but it does not seem appropriate to deprive him also 
of the title which was conferred in order to please the Begum. 
In any case, we venture to think that the title and salute of 
Siddiq Hasan should be restored, though he may not be allowed 
to have any voice in the affairs of the State. 

If the Nawab has been actually guilty of maladministration 
that is an act for which he is personally responsible, and to 
deprive him therefore of the title and salute which w T ere con¬ 
ferred on him in consideration of the loyalty of the Begum is to 
punish the Begum who is quite innocent. Such a treatment 
cannot command the approval of the public who consider it 
undignified on the part of Government, however warmly it 
may be approved by some interested newspapers actuated by 

hostile feelings against the Nawab. So much for the Nawab ; 
* * * * * 



APPENDIX C. 


Extracts from my Autobiography. 

% * ■* * * * 

In point of family I am a Sayad of descent from Fatima, 
reckoned the best blood among all Mahommedans. 

I was born at Canouj in tbo District of Farakabad, 
N. W. P. It is the seat of my ancestors and their tombs are 
yet in existence. My family was considered very respectable 
and was superior to all the Mahommedan families at Canouj. 
The whole Mahommedan community in the Upper India were 
well acquainted with the rank and attainments of my late 
revered father Syed Aulad Hossein. My father received his 
training under the fostering care of the distinguished Shah Rafi- 
u-din, son of the distinguished Shah Wali-Ullah Mahadis of 
Delhi. My father was distinguished for his literary attainments 
and had ten thousand disciples under him. He was above 
all avarice and covetuousness; he gave up the Jaigeer which was 
conferred on my ancestors by the Mogul Emperors. My father 
was by faith a Sunni and was so true to his faith that he did 
not claim the property and pension of his father a Shea by 
faith. 

My grand-father was the Hawob Syed Aulud Aly Khan 
Bahadoor u Anwar Jung.” He was one of the principal nobles 
and renowned Jaigirdars under the Hizam-ul-mulk Asaf Jah 
of Hyderabad. He held a Jaigeer with an annual income of 
five lacs of Rupees and had command of 1000 cavalry and 
infantry. The pedigree of my father is traced to Syed Jalal 
of Bokhara “Mukhdum Jahaniyan Jahan Gust.” 

On my mother’s side I claim my descent from a very res¬ 
pectable family. My grand-father was the Mufti Mahommed 
Awaz of Bareilly. He was highly respected by Asaf Dowla 
Nawob of Oude and the Kawob Amir Khan of Tonk. * * * 


( 72 ) 


I lost my father when I was only five years old. I went to 
Cawnpur and other places to prosecute my studies. After 
learning the rudiments I went to Delhi to complete my educa¬ 
tion under the tuition of the Mufti Sudirudin Khan Shaheb, the 
Sadur Sudur of Delhi. Here I was treated very kindly by the 
Nawob Mustapha Khan who had a high respect for my father, 

and in fact he treated me as a member of his house. 

* * * * * 

At the age of eighteen I left my native land in quest of 
service and proceeded to Bhopal. In 1271 A. H., the late 
Nawob Secandar Begum appointed me as her Munshi. The 
late Begum was quite satisfied with my work and had a very 
high opinion of my talents and learning. * * * * * * 
I was placed in charge of the Education Department and the 
titles of Mir Dabir and Khan were conferred on me. The 
present Ruler conferred on me the post of the Second Minister 
of the State and a Jaigeer was granted to me. * * * * * 
The late Nawob Secandar Begum was very kind to me. On 
one occasion I had gone on leave just before the mutiny. On 
my way back to Bhopal I thought of visiting the tomb of my 
grand-father Mufti Mahommed Awaz at Tonk and when I arrived 
there the Nawob Wazir-ud-dowlah Bahadoor treated me kindly 
and detained me there for eight months. I was repeatedly 
asked by the late Secandar Begum to come back to Bhopal 
and at last I responded to her call. She on one occassion had 
been to Canouj : there she accepted my invitation at my house 
and offered presents to my mother and sister. There she came 
to know that I belonged to a very respectable family and as 
she had a very high opinion of my knowledge and ability she 
offered me every encouragement to rise in her service. 

* * * * * 

Following in the wake of her late talented mother, Her 
Highness the present Ruler promoted me to posts of high 
importance. I discharged my duties in the most conscientious 
way and I rendered every satisfaction to the Ruling Chief 


( 73 ) 


Within the long course of my service I was never censured 
for negligence, dilatoriness or incapacity. I adopted Bhopal 
as my native land and I was quite happy with my family and 
children. To crown my happiness, the Euler offered me her 
hand with the concurrence of the members of the Eoyal family 
and the officers of the state. The permission of the Govern¬ 
ment of India was accorded to the proposed alliance and in the 
presence of the officers of high rank in the state, my marriage 
was celebrated. 


* -x- * * * * 


I was raised to an equality of rank and dignity with the 
late Nawab Bald Mahommed and the title of Nawab Walah 
Jah Amir-ul-Mulk and a Khilut were conferred on me. 

* - 55 - * * * * 

In 1877, at the Delhi Durbar in recognition of my loyal 
services, the Paramount Power was kind enough to order a 
salute of seventeen guns. 


After my marriage it is my constant aim to secure the 
approbation of the British Government by my unflinching 
loyalty and faithful services, and to raise the prosperity of 
Bhopal which is under an able administratrix who has already 
been highly talked of by the world. Though I had to sever 
all connections with the offices of the state I never failed to 
render service to my beloved wife, kind benefactress and 
generous Euler. 

The state of Bhopal at the time of my marriage was far 
from being prosperous. * 

The late Nawab Secandar Begum left a heavy debt and 
the present Euler was very anxious to liquidate it in the satis¬ 
factory way. It was at my suggestion, the Euler was able to 
extricate herself from the embarrassments with which the state 
was beset * * * * * 

* * * * # * 


t } 

( 74 ) 



Many of the beneficial reforms introduced in the State were 
done on my advice, and it was a very happy thing to find that a 
Lady Euler would not surrender hood-winked to any suggestion 
made by me. She used to weigh the pros and cons of every 
question and on some occasions I was quite surprised to find 
that Her Highness convinced me by the force of her arguments 
of the inexpediency and undesirability of some changes and 
innovations which I suggested. I was struck with the admirable 
way in which Her Highness could grasp a thing, but when she 
was once convinced of the propriety and utility of a reform, 
nothing would deter her to carry it out. It is for this reason she 
has acquired a fame for her intelligence and administrative skill. 
* * * * * * 

* * * * * * 

The above mentioned reforms were introduced by Her 
Highness on my suggestions and they were highly approved 
of by the British Government and the subjects of the state. 

S. H. 



















































/ 





/ 












/ 















/ 













/ 





Mm 

7 

■ >naSe3'%f£ ~ 

KvWSSSwV , JJw ^ v 

V* 



LIBRARY OF 




- ..39w* ■ ><18 

jSfemfo gftSL 2« 

/;,. . >■• v ;>r; •- \ .; x ; , ;■'. -: v . : •; 

1 'T v-fef- ' ' ', . • ' '■ ->'i h, r 


_ 0 019 652 217 7 

fer 2 Spi® 

jk-SsSL % 


f 


1®*' >£>$» % 

r 

re. *Safir^ 

ff>£ S&Y.. ?«?&. ■ T v Y$St88Sl , <i 


^5*5;,’^^ 


//•" A' -WK* •' *1 

& * &g 0 gufcr ; 


3«e hV. ^\Mv 

■n»J9l9R: 


^• >s 

’'\Vv • .'*#$% J 

•'•' ** ' 7#&.. . •■» %S r *$r& ■'•• 


i 





k< ^ 

" ■':. ; > •!'. 


Wi^ZcvT^' - 


a. A s - 

X. r 4^ 




W.7’‘> 

J'','-**- 

“ '■ 


t - "*7|(* 

fiftfl MB 


R 

;?^fw r 



W/ tjfC'? 

y 

*. 

J SjfjXSS?* 

k- ■■V'ff!'' 





yyy V" -.-■ 


. •'#*** 


MU, v® 




W IffiRS? 


•jEtt 


t ,rxr» v> v ? ■•'V/w, 


|K. J ? ; v/^ 


VvA>#l^ 

JC‘ U -4*'¥l S 

ssSiu • J8. 


*SW 

I tJ$w; 


.;•> • 


&(& f** ' ^ «*•**•» 

**2 ^.'wu^ ,.s% §i>»,i 

JL £*▼ *■ . ^ r .K*TrfJfcr*t 

Ji > .- «-,>'A. 

L&'y' S -.j 

.. W:'K^W™*' Mgr. Mi 


rW ■&!:.■ 




• ] 

jii - J 




> a ^'Sfew!> v *Mm #' ® i 

tjVVR^" TO3V >• vAfcs. 

.. , wi-i'jif-ii!.!'^ . v. •; ... o,.t^-' 




,'''.•<■ ’ ''/••* : ’ :' • , .. .. ¥V'V'-•■¥¥' . . 4 ;.£'-*V< - :; ' ’A'.v : 


9|p; 

Mw- miw ^ 

v»y y- ■ -Ps v 


*v-f. • i iyP' -. • 

^ 1 

¥¥ : &C-* 

'-YV' t-.'SKBl* 


<c .-jftKflr* •? 





i&mxKF* 

• v«■-> .y->‘ >.j 54 y 



3^ v5w? ^ 





j 9 pp^pi 

^WVr, :i -“-r^Vi^-- S’ •> •>.'.' -i*4^3| 

«r4‘ '*rrf&Vy;. U+K. r .«&.’ il 






Sgr 




iwaH 

W fliP* 


•-;V 

iWMivM 




mMm- 


*$5hw 




Y2< 




: i »aBi .-1 • • 


~ m*? 


; ISw *J 5 » I 

2- t?rt t C*Jr m »W ^;SV iY 

.. tW • •'* ■•V -• ■ ... «!>* ■’».)jim^m. •. * 


iW2C*<SV.: i’ v. 




• ; a 




i» -iir. *'.: r?V-V. ‘ 

j$y <ij ( '3rt *' , < / >* / i- 

‘ '-<■ ■{ 


•fcW' 





M . 1 


’^tc ji&if&l iKtt JiT' 1 

HiSs ; •f'rijr 



■;.M 


* '■. 




ta 



Ifcr) jn| 

jaKf 

■ jy, ,'yo^ 

n 






*'" vi/ ;-" 

'-•Jt, ffu&y , : J ^ .y 

v ’ CT*T<V’Vlvr' 



'jafl?. ; : , y-V ’ 

: ’'i§{ACi 

ujKxtzIcr'jcS 






’iiSKStS T- 


, A 

•'-•>.4 

wS&W 

#& i..i 










9w 


. j 

I 

W 

gpL 

'^f:^ ,jP* 
n^p 

’-v.^ r >■ r ■ '•■. v^S 

^'.^>^' ..._ ' ■ t» Vi XlUH 


.,..•' Vv 

«W 


‘f-j 

Ik •‘ ; ^? # 

a*J»-,Viy ^j t , 


in s ,'V.-.4Iy mwtr 


-t?>. .'. 


'Jvt^i.'T *‘.,' IV ' * <•* • v ■^*kSC j - ‘f.> y <|eS 

■.‘MM %w {L • . .4’Vgfr. 

v^*'. r ;M§ 

'■■•"it: 5?v* <#’■ jL : ' - ” r “^' »’.■' 

'- y -5i : '€rijU<' .<•• ■:.• 

; r * 

r S : ;^|i f 

... A' ; :.s?'^': 

By-.-''- II 

BaiBW IMP^s^ - yw ; y-v- y^'-y ••■-yv’- yyy '■'■ ■--■ • ■ '■■' ■H&MFW'i riSr’ ' ^ 

Pr > I ip; «K 

Vfrvzr.* X&> Rl '-Wk* ;/#•*«• '■'■ i /y>;.- 'i';-:;.?t 'i' 

W* 1 ^' 

• 

>z^M€y:*m. Itsxmz&jL 

|fejL l 

WffmMBS^ •> .-»i - - ••.' . v .*v< >.Ti • T ., .>•" V.-' . 5\ • ;• • -.- ■' ‘ -A •, ->.J •-'. ".• >-; .... ; r. •* -.< • •... M ,' f v -..I .' - i'ffl 

uuiJimnMMZm^ 

Mtfuvmmk** -^mjw »wr" j*#r m ? .i..<aw; M 


**■ [% Way • g 

•^SSiassaii^r^K? 

^'8 wy'Vf^y^SSSk dS& jttr 3 $™^‘ : iv'|y 

W MmMMll- mi&MSSr* •«* ^ -. m*^ 


M 








